- From: Mark Moore <mark.moore@notlimited.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:16:30 -0700
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Ian Hickson wrote: > Issues have been noted and are being dealt with (our internal issues list > is up to 62 issues). We'll probably release an errata update of the spec > in due course. > > None of the errors so far have been particularly cricical, which is why > there hasn't been any particular noise, I imagine. :-) I'm presuming none of the 62 issues/errata will reset the 6 month CR clock since they are not major errors. Is this correct? > > Can the WG clarify what might constitute a "major error"? > > The spec contradicting itself, or leaving a non-trivial edge case > implicitly undefined. If a major error did arise, would there be an easy to grep tag in the subject line? (Similar to the "[CSS21]" tag at the beginning of CR comments.) > If someone raises a major issue (or any issue), it is noted, fixed in the > internal draft, and at some future point will be included in a > republishing of the CSS2.1 specification. I understand the internal draft is just that, internal. But, any visibility or hints the WG might provide about the changes would be greatly appreciated. :o} A simple compromise would be to create a thread here that documents the proposed changes, or at least the identified issue that is causing the WG to change the CR. Again, the WG could tag each change with a "[CSS21-some-arbitrary-token]" tag in the subject line. You can make the tag as neutral and content free as you'd like (how 'bout [CSS21-Glomer]).
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2004 13:19:28 UTC