Correcting Errata and adding Change Log

[wareid]

Correcting the errata raised in issues #109 and #108.

Added a note to the reading order section regarding the discussion raised in #110.

Added a change log section to track the changes made in this PR and any future changes.

---

💥 Error: 500 Internal Server Error 💥

PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on Feb 16, 2022, 3:47 PM UTC).

More

PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one:

🚨 Spec Generator - Spec Generator is the web service used to build specs that rely on ReSpec.

🔗 Related URL

😭  Sorry, there was an error generating the HTML. Please report this issue!
Specification: http://labs.w3.org/spec-generator/uploads/5a0xDG/index.html?isPreview=true&publishDate=2022-02-16
ReSpec version: 31.0.2
File a bug: https://github.com/w3c/respec/
Error: Error: Evaluation failed: Timeout: document.respec.ready didn't resolve in 29095ms.
    at ExecutionContext._evaluateInternal (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/puppeteer/lib/cjs/puppeteer/common/ExecutionContext.js:221:19)
    at runMicrotasks (<anonymous>)
    at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:96:5)
    at async ExecutionContext.evaluate (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/puppeteer/lib/cjs/puppeteer/common/ExecutionContext.js:110:16)
    at async generateHTML (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/respec/tools/respecDocWriter.js:221:12)
    at async toHTML (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/respec/tools/respecDocWriter.js:92:18)
    at async Object.generate [as respec] (file:///u/spec-generator/generators/respec.js:15:44)
    at async file:///u/spec-generator/server.js:228:48

If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please file an issue.

[iherman]

The problem is that the change from SHOULD to MUST is a substantial change. If we go down the publishing line by publishing a candidate correction for a recommendation, then these changes must be marked up specifically for the relevant AC vote. See a somewhat similar change done for the Verifiable Credential in VC1.1 Proposed Amendments. I think it would be wise to do those editing right now, it would be difficult to do that later...

[mattgarrish]

Is there documentation on how to make those edits? Looking at the source classes and cites, I still couldn't hack together a parallel.

[iherman]

AFAIK, many things are buried in the scripts that respec adds to the document. I believe (to be tested) that "only" thing you have to do is to use the ins and del markup as in the example, plus the special classes for the preceding paragraph, and the rest should just work.

Cc to @marcoscaceres as the source of all knowledge on these things :-)

[marcoscaceres]

Sorry for the delay!

Process question: was the original Recommendation explicitly marked by the Working Group as an "updatable recommendation"?

Updatable Recommendations need to state the following in their SoTD:

Future updates to this Recommendation may incorporate new features.

[marcoscaceres]

About the how to mark things up, they are documented here:

https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/2016/README#amendment

It's a bit of a nightmare, tbh. We are trying to get the process simplified... but it should be ok for this set of changes as they are only little.

[iherman]

Process question: was the original Recommendation explicitly marked by the Working Group as an "updatable recommendation"?

Yes

About the how to mark things up, they are documented here:

w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/2016/README#amendment

It's a bit of a nightmare, tbh. We are trying to get the process simplified... but it should be ok for this set of changes as they are only little.

Thanks for this pointer. That resource is new to me, although I am an old-timer... ☹️

Cc @mattgarrish