W3C

- DRAFT -

WebCGM WG Teleconference
22 Feb 2007

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Lofton_Henderson, Dieter, BenoitB, ChrisL, stuart
Regrets
Thierry
Chair
lofton
Scribe
Benoit

Contents


 

 

<ChrisL> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Date: 22 February 2007

<lofton> scribe: Benoit

<ChrisL> scribenich" bbezaire

<ChrisL> scribenick: bbezaire

absent: Don

routine WG business

nothing to talk about for that topic

WebCGM 2.0 Errata

in the process document: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#errata

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Feb/0012.html

LH: class 1 or 2 seem to imply a relatively simple process

bug in DTD email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Feb/0002.html

LH: on the OASIS side there is a 4 step process
... probably takes about a month to do the 4 steps

<ChrisL> 1. No changes to text content

<ChrisL> These changes include fixing broken links or invalid markup.

CL: is this a class 1 or 2?

<ChrisL> 2. Corrections that do not affect conformance

<ChrisL> Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the technical content of the specification.

<ChrisL> in fact, it "turns non-conforming agents into conforming ones, or"

CL: if that's true it would make it a class 3
... from the OASIS perspective; this is not a substantive change
... makes an argument that only the DTD itself needs to be changed but not the spec.

LH: states that a two lines (snippet of DTD) also need to be changed in the spec

BB: is it really a class 3, implementations will not change?
... class 2

CL: I'll go with the group

LH: class 2

DW: class 2

<ChrisL> i change to 'concur'

DC: class 2

SG: class 2

<ChrisL> A correction is first "proposed" by the Working Group. A correction becomes normative -- of equal status as the text in the published Recommendation -- through one of the processes described below. An errata page MAY include both proposed and normative corrections. The Working Group MUST clearly identify which corrections are proposed and which are normative.

<ChrisL> A Working Group SHOULD keep their errata pages up-to-date, as errors are reported by readers and implementers. A Working Group MUST report errata page changes to interested parties, notably when corrections are proposed or become normative, according to the Team's requirements. For instance, the Team might set up a mailing list per Recommendation where a Working Group reports changes to an errata page.

<lofton> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/WG/2007/errata-20/webcgm20-20070317-example.dtd

<DW> quit

<ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/2006/WebCGM20-errata.html

LH: when is the next call?
... in two weeks

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/02/22 23:55:33 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127  of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/few lines/two lines/
Found Scribe: Benoit
Found ScribeNick: bbezaire
Default Present: Lofton_Henderson, Dieter, BenoitB, ChrisL, stuart
Present: Lofton_Henderson Dieter BenoitB ChrisL stuart
Regrets: Thierry
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcgm-wg/2007Feb/0013.html
Found Date: 22 Feb 2007
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2007/02/22-webcgm-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]