- From: Jose Kahan <jose.kahan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:33:16 +0100
- To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, www-xkms@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 09:34:07AM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Adding such a requirement seems sensible, but is perhaps a tad more > than an erratum, so I'd prefer if implementers say they agree with > this change before it gets made, since I guess its possible someone > does something slightly different. > > Having said that, I'm not sure what the W3C process is for deciding > that an erratum is approved or not. (Jose - do you just decide?) We just decide ourselves, provided we stay in the domain of errata[1] They are basically three types of errata: 1. No changes to text content 2. Corrections that do not affect conformance 3. Corrections that MAY affect conformance, but add no new features The 3rd one requires launching a call for review of an edited recommendation or a call for review of proposed corrections. How should we classify James' errata? We should not be afraid or proposing a review of proposed corrections if it's the right thing to do. -jose [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/06/Process-20030618/tr.html#errata
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2005 15:36:54 UTC