• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Errata E57
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:44:55 -0500
• Cc: xml-editor@w..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <p06002000bbcede136b01@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <p06002000bbc96bfb3de4@[192.168.254.4]> <20031101192951.GG21632@m...> <p06002000bbcea1001190@[192.168.254.4]> <20031105134007.GD30930@m...> <p06002000bbcede136b01@[192.168.254.4]>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:

> So is the current process that errata don't count until a new edition 
> of the recommendation has been issued? 

I'm not clear on that.  There will soon be a version 4 of the process
in which substantive errata go through a review process (editorial
errata remaining without one), but I don't know when that comes into
effect or exactly what the details are.

-- 
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy?      John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
             thou hast given away:      jcowan@r...
      That thou wast born with.         http://www.reutershealth.com

• References:
  • Errata E57
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Errata E57
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Errata E57
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Errata E57
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Errata E57
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: XML and ASN.1
• Next by Date: RE: Challenge
• Previous by thread: Re: Errata E57
• Next by thread: E55 Substantive
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread