OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Errata E57

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread 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  jcowan@reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com
"In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
        --Brian K. Reid


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS