- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:28:58 -0500
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
+1 On 2/9/2015 12:13 PM, David Singer wrote: > OK > > I think we’re making a mountain out of a molehill here. > > While, for all sorts of reasons, we can’t have a working group claiming that the edits are only editorial, and that the revised document IS the Rec that was approved, without giving people at least a cursory opportunity to look and agree or disagree, that does NOT mean that the header of the Rec can’t say > > “There is a draft of this document in which the working group has corrected a number of errors; you may prefer to work from that.” > > (with appropriate linking). > > That means that visitors get the right information: The TR is the document that went through formal IPR review etc.; but there is a document that corrects errors and is probably more suitable as a technical reference. > > The TR page could also link both (not that I ever visit it, myself; I use a search engine to find things). > >> On Feb 7, 2015, at 15:06 , Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >> >> w3process-ISSUE-155 (Errata Access in RECs): Errata access from TR page [Process Document] >> >> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/155 >> >> Raised by: Steve Zilles >> On product: Process Document >> >> This issue arose because, in the original discussion of Issue-141 Errata Management [0], some of the commenters (and, in particular, Fantasai [1]) noted that people (whether users or developers or implementers) were going to the REC (via the TR pages) and getting out of date information. >> >> [0] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141 >> [1] >> >> The goal of this issue is to find solutions associating a REC and its Errata that both (1) make it easy and natural for someone retrieving the REC document to find the most up-to-date document (including Errata) and (2) preserve the necessary permanence of a REC. (Here, “necessary permanence” is intended to mean what the community thinks is necessary to insure is preserved; we already allow updates to things like broken links in place so permanence does not mean bit by bit fidelity.) >> >> >> >> >> > David Singer > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. > >
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 19:29:15 UTC