[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Experiment in "redline" version of core spec
> This should reflect all Core-related edits contained in the > SSTC-approved instructions in errata-32 (I haven't gotten to > errata-33 yet, and note that some PEs ask for edits to more than one > spec but I haven't gotten to that either). Since you all have your > names associated with one or more PEs whose edits are included here, > I wanted to ask you to check that the edits were done correctly. They looked pretty good, it's mainly the AllowCreate changes I need to go over more closely. > Let me also take this opportunity to ask for your feedback on the > general form of the errata composite, before I go and do the same > thing to Bindings, Profiles, etc.: > > - Does the title page text sound about right? It's a little overly explicit for my taste. It reads so loose that people would look at it and think "well, it's not real yet, so I can ignore it". Somebody needs to propose an errata process to OASIS. > - To make it easier to read, should I permanently "accept" the > changes that appear on the title page? I would. > - Would it be useful for me to turn all the "[PEnn]" text sprinkled > around the spec into hyperlinks to the latest version of the errata > doc? (I'd have to update them all every time I revised the > composite, since we don't have a persistent URL for the "latest" > errata doc.) I don't think it's worth doing unless they're persistent and no work to maintain. Is there a rule that says TC documents have to be kept in Kavi? You can probably tell where I'm headed with that... -- Scott
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]