[jsdl-wg] Re: Copy/Paste bug in JSDL spec

[Gregory Newby]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 05:10:01PM +0900, Andreas Savva wrote:
> Hi Michel
> 
> > list for HTTP/1.1)? Or do the WG have to do that themselves? What if
> > WG have dissolved, and errata are discovered afterwards? 
> 
> On the point of a WG dissolving itself let me add (so that Greg can
> correct me if I'm wrong) that my understanding is that those listed on
> the front page of a document (authors/editors) are committing to
> maintaining it regardless of what happens to the WG.
> 
> Thanks.
> Andreas

Yes, precisely.  That's why I urge just a few authors/editor folks
on the cover page.  For large groups, the suggestion is to just list
one to three "Editors," then have a "Contributor" or "Author"
section that lists everyone else.

In that section, it's appropriate to include little notes about who
was really helpful, and even subdivide different types of credits.
So, people who just commented on a few paragraphs, or contributed a
table, don't necessarily get the same description in the Contributor
section.

Note that this practice is essentially the same as IETF, though
as usual we're more flexible about things than they are :)
Once the GGF has a few hundred documents, we'll probably start
enforcing tighter standards, too.

Best,
  -- Greg

> Michel Drescher wrote:
> > Folks,
> > 
> > thanks to Ralf, there is another typo known in the spec.
> > 
> > Though it is not a serious mistake (it is just in an example, after
> > all), I wonder if it is feasible to burden the GGF Editor with all these
> > small nits and bits to update the specs.
> > 
> > To the GGF process experts: Does GGF provide something like a maintained
> > errata list for published specs, similar to the IETF (e.g. an errata
> > list for HTTP/1.1)? Or do the WG have to do that themselves? What if WG
> > have dissolved, and errata are discovered afterwards? Is there a general
> > need to define a process for that?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
> > 
> > 
> > On 24 Mar 2006, at 11:01, Ratering, Ralf wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi Michel&Donal,
> >>
> >> I just noticed a minor copy/paste bug in the
> >> JSDL specs.
> >>
> >> In the examples for the Posix extensions -51)
> >> there is:
> >>
> >> page 50:
> >> <jsdl-posix:Input filesystemName="HOME">
> >> output.txt
> >> </jsdl-posix:Input>
> >>
> >> page 51:
> >> <jsdl-posix:Input filesystemName="HOME">
> >> error.txt
> >> </jsdl-posix:Input>
> >>
> >> it should obviously be:
> >> <jsdl-posix:Output filesystemName="HOME">
> >> output.txt
> >> </jsdl-posix:Output>
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> <jsdl-posix:Error filesystemName="HOME">
> >> error.txt
> >> </jsdl-posix:Error>
> >>
> >> Besides that, I like it :-)
> >> Ralf
> >>
> >> Ralf Ratering
> >> Intel GmbH
> >> Software & Solutions Group
> >> Hermuelheimer Strasse 8a
> >> 50321 Bruehl
> >> Germany
> >> Tel: +49 2232 209049
> >> Fax: +49 2232 209029
> >>
> > 
>