- From: Chaals Nevile <charles.nevile@consensys.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 15:26:18 +0000
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Alistair wrote "Where we re-publish a spec (like 2.1 recently) the errata will then appear on the face of the spec, but technically they apply even when that isn’t the case." I don't think that's quite true. The W3C Recommendation is the published document. Republishing updates that to incorporate errata. Until then, the errata are a working group note saying what they got wrong. Or perhaps just what some people think is wrong - there's no specific requirement on errata because they have no official standing. Publishing updates to Recommendations for errata isn't typically a massive amount of work, although it isn't done that often. cheers Chaals On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 00:32:37 (+02:00), Alastair Campbell wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > Mary-Jo is obviously best placed to talk about the ACRs, on the spec side: > > > Was it because we couldn't spin up an update/republication of 2.0. > > Essentially yes, it is theoretically possible to update but it would involve a huge amount of work. > > > > If so, does the mention in the errata supersede the main spec text > > Yes, in effect you have to imagine the errata are in place in the main spec. > > Where we re-publish a spec (like 2.1 recently) the errata will then appear on the face of the spec, but technically they apply even when that isn’t the case. > > Kind regards, > > -Alastair > > -- > > @alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/> > > > > -- Charles 'Chaals' Nevile Lead Standards Architect, ConsenSys Inc
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2023 15:26:29 UTC