- From: Andrew Somers <andy@generaltitles.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2022 07:03:57 -0700
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
+1 with Patrick. The idea of publishing an errata as part of a new version, instead of directly inserting corrections that are know prior top publication is “weird”, and IMO more flawed in process than the also inappropriate “must be backwards compatible” problem. > On Aug 4, 2022, at 3:16 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > > On 04/08/2022 11:09, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: > >> I'll just mention that the idea of having corrections in a separate errata (while leaving the original text as is) is supremely antiquated and not very useful for a standard - expecting developers to look not just at the word of the standard, but then having to jump to the errata to check that what they just read is actually correct? > > To be clear, I understand it for a standard that has been published and is supposed to be stable. But as we're now talking about a new edition, it makes more sense to me to actually correct things where needed (but yes, list the change in a "differences from 2.1" section). > > P > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > > https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke > https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >
Received on Monday, 8 August 2022 14:04:14 UTC