Candidate Corrections are inline errata

[plehegar]

The Process says:
[[
An erratum may be accompanied by an informative, candidate correction approved by the consensus of the Working Group. When annotated inline, errata—including their candidate corrections—must be marked as such, are treated as class 2 changes, and are published accordingly.
]]
https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#candidate-correction

This means that errata pages are no longer required for a Recommendation:
https://github.com/w3c/specberus/blob/main/lib/rules/headers/errata.js

This is related to w3c/csswg-drafts#5807

[swickr]

Either an errata page or in-line candidate|proposed changes are required.

When there are no in-line candidate|proposed corrections but the WG intends to use in-line annotations for future errata, the SoTD should explicitly note

"This document does not contain any candidate or proposed corrections."

to allow pubrules to confirm the choice was not overlooked.

[plehegar]

Also, all candidate/proposed corrections/additions appearing in the body of the spec MUST have an @id attribute, so that they can be referenced independently.

[swickr]

so that they can be referenced independently

+1 and a good practice is to enumerate all the candidate/proposed corrections in the Changes section.

[plehegar]

The sentence should be "This document does not contain any candidate or proposed changes."

[jennyliang220]

@plehegar any idea when will https://github.com/w3c/tr-design/tree/gh-pages/p2020mockup have the mockups? So that specberus can start implementing it.

[jennyliang220]

Hi, @plehegar. This issue still applies to Process2021, right?

Either one of the following situations should pass the check:

1. Has sentence "This document does not contain any candidate or proposed corrections.". Does the sentence need any link pointing to Process 2021?
2. The document has in-line candidate|proposed changes
3. The document has Errata: link in the headers.