It looks like the Serialization recommendation is inconsistent about its
presentation of examples.  In most cases they are not marked as "Notes."  They
are usually contained in boxes - see [1], which at least begins "For example,"
or [2], which just asks us to "Consider...."

But some examples are just contained within the normative prose without
anything to set them apart typographically - see the "media-type" parameter in
[3] or the second paragraph following the table in [3].

Obviously this should all be cleaned up for 1.1, but I doubt we'd want to issue
a 1.0 erratum.  Should it be cleaned up for the 1.0 2nd edition though?

[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xslt-xquery-serialization-20070123/#XML_VERSION
[2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xslt-xquery-serialization-20070123/#xml-undeclare-NS
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xslt-xquery-serialization-20070123/#serparam

Even though there was not a Bugzilla entry making the corresponding comment
about the anticipated XDM 1.1, I've made the change there.  I have NOT made the
change for XDM 1.0, but will leave that to the responsible editor. 

W.R.T. the question about issuing a 1.0 erratum: We do not anticipate actually
publishing another set of 1.0 errata documents, but will shortly initiate
processing of the 2ed documents to PER status. However, some participants have
requested that the Erratum entry be created anyway for technical reasons. 

>W.R.T. the question about issuing a 1.0 erratum: We do not anticipate actually publishing another set of 1.0 errata documents, but will shortly initiate processing of the 2ed documents to PER status. However, some participants have requested that the Erratum entry be created anyway for technical reasons. 

I think we want traceability from the second edition documents back to the
Bugzilla entries, and by far the easiest way of doing that is to publish an
Errata document for the first edition that is synchronized with the second
edition. That's what the system was set up to achieve, after all.

Hmmm.  Taking a closer look, I see that I misread the statement that "examples
and material labeled as 'Note' are provided for explanatory purposes and are
not normative."  I took "labeled as 'Note'" to apply to both examples and
material - i.e., "examples labeled as 'Note' and material labeled as
'Note'...."  So I thought for the sake of consistency I would have to change
all examples to be labeled with "Note," but I see that XQuery 1.0 does not in
fact label its examples with Note.

With apologies for my confusion, I propose to add this sentence to the end of
the second paragraph of section 1.1 of Serialization:[1]

. In this document, material labeled as "Note" and examples are provided for
explanatory purposes and are not normative.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt-xquery-serialization/#terminology

At its teleconference of 2009-02-05, the XSL WG considered the editorial
changes proposed in comment 4 and had no objections to making the change.

This will be erratum SE.E11.

Published in "Errata for XSLT 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 Serialization"[1] and PER
draft of "XSLT 2.0 and XQuery 1.0 Serialization (Second Edition)."[2]

[1] http://www.w3.org/XML/2007/qt-errata/xslt-xquery-serialization-errata.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PER-xslt-xquery-serialization-20090421/