Lists Home |
Date Index |
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
> In the past, when I have raised an issue with an erratum I have been
> told that it's too late; the decision has been made. I think errata
> need to have some sort of public review process so people can flag
> potential problems before they are released. This would also have the
> benefit of more widely publicizing beneficial errata.
This *is* the public review process. Errata processing at the W3C
has gone through three versions:
1) Post errata to a public page, say nothing.
2) Post errata to a public page; when there are enough, issue a new
edition of the Recommendation.
Both of these were widely condemned, and rightly so, for insufficient
public review (though to be sure even at version 1 people could complain
about errata to the appropriate WG).
3) (current) Post errata to a public page; when there are enough,
issue a Proposed Edited Recommendation for public comment. After the
comment period, change what needs changing in the errata list and
issue a new edition of the Recommendation.
> The current approach is much like going straight to full
> recommendation on the first release.
That was version 2 of this process, as shown above, the one used for
the XML 2nd Edition. Please re-read the 3rd paragraph of the Status section.
I really (not just rhetorically) don't understand what more you want.
(Other than to have your own way all the time, to be sure, like the
rest of us. :-) )
John Cowan email@example.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
--Brian K. Reid