Add support for errata in Req track documents (e.g. DCAT)

[davebrowning]

Its likely that our deliverables will have errors that only come to light after ratification. There are a number of ways this has been addressed in use by other groups. The easiest seems to be a link to a simple page where potential errata can be recorded and/or processed (subject to W3C procedure, of course). This is the approach used for 2014 DCAT recommendation here, and something similar is used for Data on the Web Best Practices.

At a minimum, the suggestion is to provide the link in the Rec document, and a holding page as needed.

(The discussion at #169 is probably relevent for background.)

[davebrowning]

On investigation (and playing around with respec as well as reading the documentation) it only makes sense to do this once we've reached REQ (or perhaps PER). The relevant hook will be added to config.js, but commented out.

[davebrowning]

We will need to/should provide an (initially) empty template errata page as per W3C style guide but this is only relevent after reaching REC status

[andrea-perego]

Should we move this one to future work?

[aisaac]

Lesson learnt from past experience: creating a fully fledged errata page is probably not needed for PR, but it's good to include a URL for it in the spec document (ie the main DCAT spec) now, though, even if it's a stub. Such link obviously helps readers find the fixes you want them to find. And adding the link at later stage in the process may prove more difficult! (especially if you forget it before it moves to Rec...)

[riccardoAlbertoni]

Some discussion about the errata document is in progress under issue #1182 and PR #1209.

[andrea-perego]

An errata document is available for DCAT 2, and linked to from the spec:

https://w3c.github.io/dxwg/errata/

See #1182 & #1209

I'm closing this issue.