Offering a previously stated suggestion.
"Editorial changes" (the definitions 1 and 2 from W3C Process Document
seem reasonable) must be proposed to the public list and clearly
identified as such. If any voting member objects and considers such
change as "not editorial", then the formal ballot process shall take
place. if no objections are raised, then these editorial changes shall
be applied along with changes approved via the next upcoming ballot.
Does this make sense?
Dimitris.
On 8/12/2017 9:14 μμ, Virginia Fournier via Public wrote:
Maybe we could state that “editorial” changes could be made without
restarting the discussion period. “Editorial” could be defined
something like 1 and 2 below (taken from the W3C Process Document):
6.2.5 Classes of Changes
This document distinguishes the following 4 classes of changes to a
specification. The first two classes of change are considered
editorial changes, the latter two substantive changes.
1. No changes to text content
These changes include fixing broken links, style sheets or invalid
markup.
2. Corrections that do not affect conformance
Changes that reasonable implementers would not interpret as
changing architectural or interoperability requirements or their
implementation. Changes which resolve ambiguities in the
specification are considered to change (by clarification) the
implementation requirements and do not fall into this class.
Examples of changes in this class include correcting non-normative
code examples where the code clearly conflicts with normative
requirements, clarifying informative use cases or other
non-normative text, fixing typos or grammatical errors where the
change does not change implementation requirements. If there is
any doubt or dissent as to whether requirements are changed, such
changes do not fall into this class.
3. Corrections that do not add new features
These changes /may/ affect conformance to the specification. A
change that affects conformance is one that:
* makes conforming data, processors, or other conforming agents
become non-conforming according to the new version, or
* makes non-conforming data, processors, or other agents become
conforming, or
* clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the
specification in such a way that data, a processor, or an
agent whose conformance was once unclear becomes clearly
either conforming or non-conforming.
4. New features
Changes that add a new functionality, element, etc.
Best regards,
Virginia Fournier
Senior Standards Counsel
Apple Inc.
☏ 669-227-9595
✉︎ [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
On Dec 8, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Kirk Hall <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Gerv, this started as your ballot, so it's up to you - do you want to
allow such minor edits without restarting the discussion period, or not?
If yes, you need to put defining / permissive language in the ballot.
I won't be comfortable if we have no written permission for edits,
but then allow them informally later when ballots have errors - it
needs to be in the ballot.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gervase Markham [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 1:23 PM
To: Kirk Hall <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>; CA/Browser Forum Public
Discussion List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>;
Ryan Sleevi <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Virginia Fournier <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period
On 08/12/17 18:17, Kirk Hall via Public wrote:
Just putting the question to you in the abstract – do you think we
should have to restart a seven day discussion just to correct an
obvious typo?
Let us say the answer to that question is "no". Then the obvious next
question is: "how do you, the proponent of this idea, define 'obvious
typo' in a way which does not open the door to substantive changes, or
changes which people would argue about the substantiveness of, and
without inventing Yet Another Voting/Polling Mechanism"?
Gerv
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
