[rfc-i] References to Errata

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Mon Mar 24 11:43:47 PDT 2014


Would it be possible to modify the usage a little bit, errata is after all
a plural form but frequently used to describe a single error report. It
sort of hurts my ears (and yes, I know about data/datum).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erratum


On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>wrote:

> On Mar 24, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2014-03-24 18:55, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>>>     The following format is required when a reference to an errata
> >>>>> report
> >>>>>     is necessary:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>        [ErrNNNN]  RFC Errata, Errata ID NNNN, RFC NNNN,
> >>>>>                   <http:/www.rfc-editor.org>.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>        [Err1912]  RFC Errata, Errata ID 1912, RFC 2978,
> >>>>>                   <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Big -1. The RFC Editor should provide stable URIs for errata, and
> they
> >>>>> should be used in the reference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, the format is very misleading. The erratum is not the RFC, so
> >>>>> this
> >>>>> is a case where the notation deviates from what we use elsewhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can we make it "RFC Erratum RFCXXXX-NNNN", so we can drop the "RFC
> >>>>> NNNN"
> >>>>> entry?
> >>>>
> >>>> The errata system is slated for a pretty extensive overhaul as part of
> >>>> the fallout from the upcoming format changes.  I suggest leaving the
> >>>> Style Guide guidance as is for now, noting that it will change
> >>>> significantly in the next 12-24 months.
> >>>
> >>> -1. This is new text. Either don't have it at all, or get it right now.
> >>
> >> I argue that the new text is, while not a complete answer to what we
> >> need to do with errata, is still an improvement over what we have today.
> >
> > I believe the first point I made needs to be addressed:
> >
> > "Also, the format is very misleading. The erratum is not the RFC, so
> this is a case where the notation deviates from what we use elsewhere."
> >
> > Also, why can't we define the stable errata URI right now?
>
> A big +1 to both of Julian's points.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140324/2233ff6c/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list