Re: Errata process for WCAG and/or W3C

pjenkins@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> I was under the impression, but apparently mistaken, that the "current
> version" [1] of the document had in fact incorporated the errata [2] as
> they came in and were posted.  In other words, why have a 5 May 1999
> version and a "current version" if they are still the same?  Can't we
> integrate the errata without changing the level of the recommendation?
>
> I reviewed the W3C process [3] and found no mention of "how" to manage
> errata.

Ian wrote:
>
> The W3C Process Document does not explain to that level of
> detail how W3C works. It does say in the 9 June draft [4]
> (and earlier versions):
>
>      W3C will make every effort to make archival documents
>      indefinitely available at their original address in
>      their original form.

O.K., that's what I had read, and it makes sense for URI
http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/
but why also have the "Latest Version" link?
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/

> W3C *never* (to the best of our ability) changes content
> of a published technical report. Therefore, it's impossible
> to incorporate errata; you have to publish a new document
> (which we've done, e.g., for HTML 4 on two occasions).
>

O.K., at IBM we call them "1.0.1", or something to signify a minor
non-content, fixes only, typographical types changes. Are not Errata pages
mostly these?  HTML 4.01 seemed more than incorporation of errata pages as
explained in the "Status of this document" section in the front matter.
But there was a "revised edition" of HTML 40 published on 24 April
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/

So couldn't we at some point before WCAG 2.0, published a revised edition
WCAG 1.0?  It's been a year since 5 May 1999.

Issues and new content would be incorporated into new versions like "2.0".
Seems like [5] covers most of this.


> There is an issue that has not been dealt with at W3C
> as a whole:
>    what is the normative status of errata pages?
> In particular, the AC does not review errata decisions
> as they review the original document, so can the WG
> just say "this is the fix to that problem" or should
> significant fixes be reviewed by the AC?

"problems" that are minor non-content, fixes only, typographical types
changes as determined by the editors and review by the working group should
NOT require an AC review.  Significant "fixes" which included
re-arrangement. new content, and resolution of content issues should be
reviewed by the AC and the document given a new version number, at least
X.X+1


> This topic should be discussed on the chairs list, in
> my opinion.
>
> Also, there is a bit on managing errata in the
> Guidebook [5], but it's not "normative"; just suggested
> practice.
>
> - Ian
>
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2000/06/Process-20000609/tr.html
> [5] http://www.w3.org/Guide/Reports#errata
>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WAI-WEBCONTENT-ERRATA
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/tr.html#Recs
>>
>> Phill Jenkins,  1.512.838.4517
>> IBM Accessibility Center - Special Needs Systems

Phill

Received on Thursday, 15 June 2000 18:09:27 UTC