+1 – sounds good to me. Gerv – are you willing to make this change to your draft ballot?
From: Dimitris Zacharopoulos [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 3:24 PM To: Virginia Fournier <[email protected]>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <[email protected]>; Kirk Hall <[email protected]>; Gervase Markham <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] [EXTERNAL]Re: Ballot XXX: Update Discussion Period 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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
