tr.html
changeset 47 b29f6b51a034
parent 46 ea903587f98e
child 48 2097fedfe542
--- a/tr.html	Mon Oct 21 22:45:14 2013 +0100
+++ b/tr.html	Tue Oct 22 03:01:28 2013 +0100
@@ -23,12 +23,13 @@
     <div class="head">
       <p> <a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img alt="W3C" src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home"
             height="48" width="72"></a> </p>
-      <h1 class="title" id="title">Recommendation Track Process, draft proposal</h1>
+      <h1 class="title" id="title">Recommendation Track Process, "Last Call"
+        draft proposal</h1>
       <h2 id="w3c-working-draft-20-september-2012"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium"></abbr>Editors'
-        Draft 18 October 2013</h2>
+        Draft 21 October 2013</h2>
       <dl>
-        <!--dt>Latest published version:</dt>
-        <dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML-longdesc">http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML-longdesc</a></dd-->
+        <dt>Current active version:</dt>
+        <dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html</a></dd>
         <dt>Latest editor's draft:</dt>
         <dd> <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html">https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html</a></dd>
         <dt>Editor:</dt>
@@ -52,15 +53,14 @@
         <p>This is a revised draft proposal to replace the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">current
             chapter 7 of the W3C process document</a> with a more effective W3C
           Specification life cycle following the meeting of the W3C Advisory
-          Board 14 October 2013. This document is an editor's draft for the
-          Advisory Board but does not yet fully reflect consensus. The Advisory
-          Board proposed, at its 14 October meeting, recommending the content of
-          this draft (although the last version they saw was the 9 October
-          draft) as a "Last Call" draft proposed for adoption by the Advisory
-          Committee as a replacement for the existing Chapter 7. Review will
-          take place over several weeks, including the week of W3C's TPAC
-          meeting (10-15 November), before a formal decision on adoption is
-          made.</p>
+          Board's Chapter 7 Task Force on 21 October 2013. This document is an
+          editor's draft of a "Last Call" version. The Task Force resolved at
+          its 21 October meeting to recommend the agreed draft (although the
+          last version they saw was the 9 October draft) as a "Last Call" draft
+          proposed for adoption by the Advisory Committee as a replacement for
+          the existing Chapter 7. Review will take place over several weeks,
+          including the week of W3C's TPAC meeting (10-15 November), before a
+          formal decision on adoption is made.</p>
         <p>An initial version was first proposed to the W3C Advisory Board on 13
           May 2013 as a possible replacement for the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">current
             chapter 7 of the W3C process document</a>, and a <a href="http://yadi.sk/d/Zikwkr385JG8f">subsequent
@@ -72,15 +72,15 @@
           Board retains formal responsibility for decisions on what it proposes
           to the Advisory Committee, and the adoption of any change to the
           process will follow the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess">existing
-            process for such changes</a> subject to the resolution of <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39">ISSUE-39</a>.</p>
+            process for such changes</a>, subject to the resolution of <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39">ISSUE-39</a>.</p>
         <p>I am grateful to the W3C Advisory Board, the W3C Process Community
           Group, Art Barstow, Robin Berjon, Wayne Carr, Marcos Cáceres, Ivan
-          Herman, Ian Hickson, Ian Jacobs, Chris Lilley, Ralph Swick, Anne van
-          Kesteren, Steve Zilles, and many people I have forgotten to
-          acknowledge for suggestions, comments and discussions that helped me
-          sort out my thinking, and to Ora Lassila for the original version of
-          the image that illustrates the normal process of a W3C
-          Recommendation-track document. </p>
+          Herman, Ian Hickson, Ian Jacobs, Jeff Jaffe, Chris Lilley, Ralph
+          Swick, Anne van Kesteren, Steve Zilles, and many people I have
+          forgotten to acknowledge for suggestions, comments and discussions
+          that helped me sort out my thinking, and to Ora Lassila for the
+          original version of the image that illustrates the normal process of a
+          W3C Recommendation-track document. </p>
         <p>Please send comments on this document to, or participate in, the <a
             href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">W3C Process Community
             Group</a>. Issues related to this proposal are recorded in that
@@ -177,57 +177,56 @@
             <polygon points="324.306,-21.5001 334.306,-18 324.306,-14.5001 324.306,-21.5001"
               stroke="black" fill="black"></polygon> </g> </g> </svg> </p>
     <h3>Table of Contents</h3>
-    <ul id="mozToc">
+    <ul id="Toc">
       <!--mozToc h3 1 h4 2 h5 3 h6 4-->
-      <li><a href="#mozTocId663575">Table of Contents</a></li>
-      <li><a href="#mozTocId640923">General requirements for Technical Reports</a></li>
-      <li><a href="#mozTocId773099">7.1 Maturity Levels</a></li>
-      <li><a href="#mozTocId48944">7.2 General Requirements for Advancement on
+      <li><a href="#general-requirements">General requirements for Technical
+          Reports</a></li>
+      <li><a href="#maturity-levels">7.1 Maturity Levels</a></li>
+      <li><a href="#transition-reqs">7.2 General Requirements for Advancement on
           the Recommendation Track</a>
         <ul>
-          <li><a href="#mozTocId61574">7.2.1 Substantive Change</a></li>
-          <li><a href="#mozTocId776695">7.2.2 Wide Review</a></li>
-          <li><a href="#mozTocId111988">7.2.3 Implementation Experience</a></li>
+          <li><a href="#substantive-change">7.2.1 Substantive Change</a></li>
+          <li><a href="#wide-review">7.2.2 Wide Review</a></li>
+          <li><a href="#implementation-experience">7.2.3 Implementation
+              Experience</a></li>
         </ul>
       </li>
-      <li><a href="#mozTocId838441">7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</a></li>
-      <li><a href="#mozTocId983157">7.4 Advancing a Technical Report to
+      <li><a href="#doc-reviews">7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</a></li>
+      <li><a href="#rec-advance">7.4 Advancing a Technical Report to
           Recommendation</a>
         <ul>
-          <li><a href="#mozTocId647636">7.4.1 Working Draft</a>
+          <li><a href="#wd">7.4.1 Working Draft</a>
             <ul>
-              <li><a href="#mozTocId165613">7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft</a></li>
-              <li><a href="#mozTocId671592">7.4.1.b Revised Public Working
-                  Drafts</a></li>
+              <li><a href="#first-wd">7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft</a></li>
+              <li><a href="#revised-wd">7.4.1.b Revised Public Working Drafts</a></li>
             </ul>
           </li>
-          <li><a href="#mozTocId275563">7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
-          <li><a href="#mozTocId809317">7.4.3 Publication of a W3C
+          <li><a href="#last-call">7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
+          <li><a href="#rec-publication">7.4.3 Publication of a W3C
               Recommendation</a>
             <ul>
-              <li><a href="#mozTocId629587">Publishing a Last Call Candidate
-                  Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
-              <li><a href="#mozTocId40322">Publishing an Edited Recommendation
-                  (See also Modifying a Recommendation below)</a></li>
-              <li><a href="#mozTocId681338">For all W3C Recommendations, in
-                  addition to meeting the general requirements for advancement,</a></li>
+              <li><a href="#lcrec-publication">7.4.3.a Publishing a Last Call
+                  Candidate Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
+              <li><a href="#rec-edited">7.4.3.b Publishing an Edited
+                  Recommendation</a></li>
+              <li><a href="#for-all-recs">7.4.3.c For all W3C Recommendations</a></li>
             </ul>
           </li>
         </ul>
       </li>
-      <li><a href="#mozTocId360048">7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest
-          Group Note</a></li>
-      <li><a href="#mozTocId38383">7.6 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</a>
+      <li><a href="#tr-end">7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group
+          Note</a></li>
+      <li><a href="#rec-modify">7.6 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</a>
         <ul>
-          <li><a href="#mozTocId72619">7.6.1 Errata Management</a></li>
-          <li><a href="#mozTocId171734">7.6.2 Classes of Changes to a
+          <li><a href="#errata">7.6.1 Errata Management</a></li>
+          <li><a href="#correction-classes">7.6.2 Classes of Changes to a
               Recommendation</a></li>
         </ul>
       </li>
-      <li><a href="#mozTocId737554">7.7 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
-      <li><a href="#mozTocId185651">Good practices</a></li>
+      <li><a href="#rec-rescind">7.7 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
+      <li><a href="#good-practice">Good practices</a></li>
     </ul>
-    <h3>General requirements for Technical Reports</h3>
+    <h3 id="general-requirements">General requirements for Technical Reports</h3>
     <p>Every document published as part of the technical report development
       process <em class="rfc2119 old">must</em> be a public document. The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/">index
         of W3C technical reports</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-doc-list">PUB11</a>]
@@ -237,47 +236,41 @@
     <p>Every document published as part of the technical report development
       process <em class="rfc2119 old">must</em> <span class="from">(was in
         7.8)</span> clearly indicate its <a href="#maturity-levels">maturity
-        level</a>, and <em id="DocumentStatus" class="rfc2119">must</em> <span
-        class="from">(was in 7.8.1)</span> include a section about the status of
-      the document. The status section</p>
+        level</a>, and <em id="DocumentStatus" class="rfc2119">must</em>
+      include a section about the status of the document. The status section</p>
     <ul>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119 changed">must</em> be unique each time a
-        specification is published<br>
-        <em class="rfc2119 changed"></em></li>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119 changed">must</em> <span class="from">(was should
-          in 7.8.1)</span> state who developed the specification, </li>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119 changed">must</em> <span class="from">(was should
-          in 7.8.1)</span> state how to send comments or file bugs, and where
-        these are recorded, </li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> be unique each time a specification is
+        published,<br>
+        <em class="rfc2119"></em></li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> state who developed the specification, </li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> state how to send comments or file bugs,
+        and where these are recorded, </li>
       <li> <em class="rfc2119">should</em> explain how the technology relates
         to existing international standards and related work inside or outside
         W3C,</li>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.8.1)</span>
-        include expectations about next steps, and</li>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.8.1)</span>
-        explain or link to an explanation of significant changes from the
-        previous version.</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> include expectations about next steps,
+        and</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> explain or link to an explanation of
+        significant changes from the previous version.</li>
     </ul>
-    <p>Every technical report published as part of the technical report
+    <p>Every Technical Report published as part of the Technical Report
       development process is edited by one or more editors appointed by a Group
       Chair. It is the responsibility of these editors to ensure that the
-      decisions of the group are correctly reflected in subsequent drafts of the
-      technical report. An editor <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <span class="from">(was
-        in 7.8)</span> be a participant, as a Member representative, Team
-      representative, or Invited Expert in the group responsible for the
-      document(s) they are editing. </p>
-    <p>The Team is <em class="rfc2119">not required</em> <span class="from">(was
-        in 7.8)</span> to publish a technical report that does not conform to
-      the Team's <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication Rules</a>
-      (e.g., for <a name="DocumentName" id="DocumentName">naming</a>, style,
-      and <a name="document-copyright" id="document-copyright">copyright
+      decisions of the Group are correctly reflected in subsequent drafts of the
+      technical report. An editor <em class="rfc2119">must</em> be a
+      participant, as a Member representative, Team representative, or Invited
+      Expert in the Group responsible for the document(s) they are editing. </p>
+    <p>The Team is <em class="rfc2119">not required</em> to publish a Technical
+      Report that does not conform to the Team's <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication
+        Rules</a> (e.g., for <a name="DocumentName" id="DocumentName">naming</a>,
+      style, and <a name="document-copyright" id="document-copyright">copyright
         requirements</a>). These rules are subject to change by the Team from
       time to time. The Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em> inform group Chairs
-      and the Advisory Board of any changes.</p>
-    <p>The primary language for W3C technical reports is English. W3C encourages
-      the translation of its technical reports. <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/">Information
+      and the Advisory Board of any changes to these rules.</p>
+    <p>The primary language for W3C Technical Reports is English. W3C encourages
+      the translation of its Technical Reports. <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/">Information
         about translations of W3C technical reports</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-translations">PUB18</a>]
-      is available at the W3C Web site.<span class="from">(was in 7.8)</span></p>
+      is available at the W3C Web site.</p>
     <h3>7.1 <a name="maturity-levels" id="maturity-levels">Maturity Levels</a></h3>
     <dl>
       <dt><a name="RecsWD" id="RecsWD">Working Draft (WD)</a></dt>
@@ -287,11 +280,10 @@
         Recommendation; see the <a href="#DocumentStatus">document status
           section</a> of a Working Draft for the group's expectations. Any
         Working Draft not, or no longer, intended to advance to Recommendation <em
-          class="rfc2119">should</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.5)</span> be
-        published as a Working Group Note. Working Drafts do not necessarily
-        represent a consensus of the Working Group, and do not imply any
-        endorsement by W3C or its members beyond agreement to work on a general
-        area of technology.</dd>
+          class="rfc2119">should</em> be published as a Working Group Note.
+        Working Drafts do not necessarily represent a consensus of the Working
+        Group, and do not imply any endorsement by W3C or its members beyond
+        agreement to work on a general area of technology.</dd>
       <dt><a name="RecsCR" id="RecsCR">Last Call Candidate Recommendation
           (LC/CR)</a></dt>
       <dd class="changed">A Last Call Candidate Recommendation is a document
@@ -304,18 +296,17 @@
               experience</a></li>
           <li>begin formal review by the Advisory Committee, who <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
             recommend that the document be published as a W3C Recommendation,
-            returned to the Working Group for further work, or abandoned. <span
-              class="from">(was two steps)</span> </li>
+            returned to the Working Group for further work, or abandoned. </li>
         </ul>
       </dd>
       <dd class="new"><strong>Note:</strong> Last Call Candidate Recommendation
         is the state referred to in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C
           Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>]
         as "Last Call Working Draft"</dd>
-      <dd class="new"><strong>Note:</strong> Last Call Candidate Recommendations
-        will normally be accepted as Recommendations. Announcement of a
-        different next step <em class="rfc2119">should</em> include the reasons
-        why the change in expectations comes at so late a stage.</dd>
+      <dd><strong>Note:</strong> Last Call Candidate Recommendations will
+        normally be accepted as Recommendations. Announcement of a different
+        next step <em class="rfc2119">should</em> include the reasons why the
+        change in expectations comes at so late a stage.</dd>
       <dt><a name="RecsW3C" id="RecsW3C">W3C Recommendation (REC)</a></dt>
       <dd>A W3C Recommendation is a specification or set of normative guidelines
         that, after extensive consensus-building, has received the endorsement
@@ -324,17 +315,16 @@
       <dt><a name="WGNote" id="WGNote">Working Group Note, Interest Group Note
           (NOTE) </a></dt>
       <dd>A Working Group Note or Interest Group Note is published by a
-        chartered Working Group or Interest Group to <span class="new">provide
-          a stable reference for some document that is not intended to be a
-          normative specification, but is nevertheless useful. For example,
-          supporting documents such as Use case and Requirements documents, or
-          Design Principles, that explain what the Working Group was trying to
-          achieve with a specification, or non-normative 'Good Practices"
-          documents.</span> A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> also
-        publish a specification as a Note if they stop work without producing a
-        Recommendation. <span class="changed">A Working Group or Interest Group</span>
-        <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <span class="from">(was "W3C" in 7.1.4)</span>
-        publish a Note with or without its prior publication as a Working Draft.</dd>
+        chartered Working Group or Interest Group to &gt;provide a stable
+        reference for some document that is not intended to be a normative
+        specification, but is nevertheless useful. For example, supporting
+        documents such as Use case and Requirements documents, or Design
+        Principles, that explain what the Working Group was trying to achieve
+        with a specification, or non-normative 'Good Practices" documents. A
+        Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> also publish a specification
+        as a Note if they stop work without producing a Recommendation. A
+        Working Group or Interest Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> publish a
+        Note with or without its prior publication as a Working Draft.</dd>
       <dt><a name="RescindedRec" id="RescindedRec">Rescinded Recommendation</a></dt>
       <dd>A Rescinded Recommendation is an entire Recommendation that W3C no
         longer endorses. See also clause 10 of the licensing requirements for
@@ -342,39 +332,36 @@
           5</a> of the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C
           Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].</dd>
     </dl>
-    <p class="new">Working Groups and Interest Groups <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
-      publish "Editor's drafts". Editor's drafts have no official standing
-      whatsoever, and do not imply consensus of a Working Group or Interest
-      Group, nor are their contents endorsed in any way by W3C or its members,
-      except to the extent that such contents happen to be consistent with some
-      other document which carries a higher level of endorsement.</p>
+    <p>Working Groups and Interest Groups <em class="rfc2119">may</em> publish
+      "Editor's drafts". Editor's drafts have no official standing whatsoever,
+      and do not imply consensus of a Working Group or Interest Group, nor are
+      their contents endorsed in any way by W3C or its members, except to the
+      extent that such contents happen to be consistent with some other document
+      which carries a higher level of endorsement.</p>
     <h3>7.2 <a name="transition-reqs" id="transition-reqs">General Requirements
         for Advancement on the Recommendation Track</a></h3>
     <p>For <em>all</em> requests to advance a specification to a new maturity
       level other than Note the Working Group:</p>
     <ul>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.2)</span>
-        record the group's decision to request advancement.</li>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119">must </em><span class="from">(was repeated in
-          maturity levels)</span> obtain Director approval.</li>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119 ">must</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.2)</span>
-        provide public documentation of all <a href="#substantive-change">substantive
-          changes</a> to the technical report since the previous publication.
-        The community also appreciates public documentation of minor changes.</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the group's decision to request
+        advancement.</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must </em> obtain Director approval.</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119 ">must</em> provide public documentation of all <a
+          href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a> to the technical
+        report since the previous publication. The community also appreciates
+        public documentation of minor changes.</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
-          address</a> <span class="from">(was in 7.2)</span> all issues raised
-        about the document since the previous maturity level.</li>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.2)</span>
-        provide <span class="new">public</span> documentation of any <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection">Formal
+          address</a> all issues raised about the document since the previous
+        maturity level.</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> provide public documentation of any <a
+          href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection">Formal
           Objections</a>.</li>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119 changed">should</em> <span class="from">(was must
-          for CR+ in 7.2)</span> report which, if any, of the Working Group's
-        requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.</li>
-      <li><em class="rfc2119 changed">should</em> <span class="from">(was must
-          for CR+ in 7.2)</span> report any changes in dependencies with other
-        groups.</li>
-      <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known
-        implementation.</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> report which, if any, of the Working
+        Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous
+        step.</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> report any changes in dependencies
+        with other groups.</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known implementation.</li>
     </ul>
     <p>Because the requirements for First Public Working Drafts are fairly
       mechanical approval is normally fairly automatic, whereas for later stages
@@ -389,16 +376,16 @@
       experience. Other changes (e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial
       repairs, and minor error corrections) are minor changes.</p>
     <h4>7.2.2 <a id="wide-review">Wide Review</a></h4>
-    <p>The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the
-      process. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of stakeholders of
-      the Web community, including the general public, have had adequate notice
-      of the progress of the Working Group and thereby an opportunity to comment
-      on the specification. Before approving transitions, the Director will
-      consider who has actually reviewed the document and provided comments, the
-      record of requests to and responses from reviewers, especially groups
-      identified as dependencies in the charter, and seek evidence of clear
-      communication to the general public about appropriate times and which
-      content to review. </p>
+    <p>The requirements for <dfn>wide review</dfn> are not precisely defined by
+      the process. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of
+      stakeholders of the Web community, including the general public, have had
+      adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group and thereby an
+      opportunity to comment on the specification. Before approving transitions,
+      the Director will consider who has actually reviewed the document and
+      provided comments, the record of requests to and responses from reviewers,
+      especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter, and seek
+      evidence of clear communication to the general public about appropriate
+      times and which content to review. </p>
     <p>For example, inviting review of new or significantly revised sections
       published in Working Drafts, and tracking those comments and the Working
       Group's responses, is generally a good practice which would often be
@@ -419,8 +406,9 @@
       sufficiently clear, complete, and relevant to market needs that
       independent interoperable implementations of each feature of the
       specification will be realized. While no exhaustive list of requirements
-      is provided here, when assessing that there is adequate implementation
-      experience the Director will consider (though not be limited to):</p>
+      is provided here, when assessing that there is <dfn>adequate
+        implementation experience</dfn> the Director will consider (though not
+      be limited to):</p>
     <ul>
       <li>is each feature implemented, and how is this demonstrated; (for
         example, is there a test suite)?</li>
@@ -445,11 +433,10 @@
         address</a> <em>any</em> substantive review comment about a technical
       report in a timely manner. </p>
     Reviewers <em class="rfc2119">should</em> send substantive technical
-    reviews as early as possible. Working Groups <span class="from">(was
-      should)</span> are often reluctant to make <a href="#substantive-change">substantive
-      changes</a> to a mature document, <span class="new">particularly if this
-      would cause significant compatibility problems due to existing
-      implementation</span>. Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
+    reviews as early as possible. Working Groups are often reluctant to make <a
+      href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a> to a mature document,
+    particularly if this would cause significant compatibility problems due to
+    existing implementation. Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
     record substantive or interesting proposals raised by reviews but not
     incorporated into a current specification.
     <h3>7.4 <a name="rec-advance" id="rec-advance">Advancing a Technical Report
@@ -472,7 +459,7 @@
       in maturity level, requiring a Working Group to conduct further work, and
       <em class="rfc2119">may</em> require the specification to return to a
       lower <a href="#maturity-level">maturity level</a>. The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
-      <span class="from">(was in 7.4.6)</span> inform the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
+      inform the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
         Committee</a> and Working Group Chairs when a Working Group's request
       for a specification to advance in maturity level is declined and and the
       specification is returned to a Working Group for further work.</p>
@@ -484,7 +471,7 @@
     <ul>
       <li> <em class="rfc2119">should</em> document outstanding issues, and
         parts of the document on which the Working Group does not have
-        consensus.</li>
+        consensus, and</li>
       <li> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> request publication of a Working Draft
         even if it is unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.</li>
     </ul>
@@ -496,32 +483,31 @@
         4</a> of the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C
         Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].</p>
     <h5 id="revised-wd">7.4.1.b Revised Public Working Drafts</h5>
-    <p class="new">A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish a
-      Working Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been
-      significant changes to the document that would benefit from review from
-      beyond the Working Group<em class="rfc2119"></em>. </p>
-    <p class="new">If 6 months elapse without significant changes to a
-      specification a Working Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish a
-      revised Working Draft, whose status section <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
-      indicate reasons for the lack of change. </p>
-    <p class="new"> </p>
-    <p>To publish a revised Working draft, a Working Group <span class="from">(copied
-        since this is not a new maturity level)</span> </p>
+    <p>A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish a Working Draft
+      to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes
+      to the document that would benefit from review from beyond the Working
+      Group<em class="rfc2119"></em>. </p>
+    <p>If 6 months elapse without significant changes to a specification a
+      Working Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish a revised Working
+      Draft, whose status section <em class="rfc2119">should</em> indicate
+      reasons for the lack of change. </p>
+    <p> </p>
+    <p>To publish a revised Working draft, a Working Group </p>
     <ul>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the group's decision to request
-        publication. Consensus is not required, as this is a procedural step.</li>
+        publication. Consensus is not required, as this is a procedural step,</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> provide public documentation of <a href="#substantive-change">substantive
-          changes</a> to the technical report since the previous Working Draft.</li>
+          changes</a> to the technical report since the previous Working Draft,</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> provide public documentation of
         significant <a href="#editorial-change">editorial changes</a> to the
-        technical report since the previous step.</li>
+        technical report since the previous step,</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> report which, if any, of the Working
         Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous
-        step.</li>
+        step,</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> report any changes in dependencies
-        with other groups.</li>
+        with other groups,</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document outstanding issues and parts
-        of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus.</li>
+        of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus, and</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> request publication of a Working Draft
         even if it is unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.</li>
     </ul>
@@ -539,20 +525,19 @@
     <ul>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the specification has met all
         Working Group requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed
-        or been deferred.</li>
+        or been deferred,</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document changes to dependencies during
-        the development of the specification. </li>
-      <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document how adequate <a href="#implementation-experience">
-          implementation experience</a> will be demonstrated.</li>
+        the development of the specification,</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document how adequate <a href="#implementation-experience">
+          implementation experience</a> will be demonstrated,</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> specify the deadline for comments, which
-        <em class="rfc2119 changed">must</em> <span class="from">(was should)</span>
-        be at least four weeks after publication, <span class="new">and <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
-          be longer for complex documents.</span></li>
-      <li class="new">If the document has previously been published as a Last
-        Call Candidate Recommendation, <em class="rfc2119">must</em> document
-        the changes since the previous Last Call Candidate Recommendation. </li>
-      <li class="changed"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the
-        specification has received <a href="#wide-review">wide review</a>.</li>
+        <em class="rfc2119">must</em> be at least four weeks after publication,
+        and <em class="rfc2119">should</em> be longer for complex documents,</li>
+      <li>If the document has previously been published as a Last Call Candidate
+        Recommendation, <em class="rfc2119">must</em> document the changes
+        since the previous Last Call Candidate Recommendation, </li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the specification has received
+        <a href="#wide-review">wide review</a>, and</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> identify features in the document that
         are considered "at risk". These features <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
         be removed before advancement to Recommendation without a requirement to
@@ -576,12 +561,11 @@
         expected next step)</li>
       <li><a href="#tr-end">Working Group Note</a></li>
     </ul>
-    <p class="new">If there are any <a href="#substantive-change">substantive
-        changes</a> made to a Last Call Candidate Recommendation other than to
-      remove features explicitly identified as "at risk", the Working Group <em
-        class="rfc2119">must</em> repeat the full process of publication as a
-      Last Call Candidate Recommendation before the Working Group can request
-      Recommendation status.</p>
+    <p>If there are any <a href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a>
+      made to a Last Call Candidate Recommendation other than to remove features
+      explicitly identified as "at risk", the Working Group <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
+      repeat the full process of publication as a Last Call Candidate
+      Recommendation before the Working Group can request Recommendation status.</p>
     <p> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
         Committee</a> representatives <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a>
       the decision to advance the technical report.</p>
@@ -592,38 +576,35 @@
     <p>To publish a Last Call Candidate Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation,
       a Working Group</p>
     <ul>
-      <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> republish the document,
-        identifying it as the basis of a Request for Recommendation.</li>
-      <li><span class="changed"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show adequate <a
-            href="#implementation-experience">implementation experience</a>.</span><span
-          class="from">(said preferably should be two interoperable
-          implementations...)</span></li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> republish the document, identifying it
+        as the basis of a Request for Recommendation,</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show adequate <a href="#implementation-experience">implementation
+          experience</a>,</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the document has received <a
-          href="#wide-review">wide review</a></li>
+          href="#wide-review">wide review,</a></li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that all issues raised during the
         Last Call Candidate Recommendation review period have been <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
-          addressed</a>.</li>
+          addressed</a>,</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must </em>identify any substantive issues raised
         since the close of the review period by parties other than Advisory
-        Committee representatives <span class="from">(was in 7.3)</span></li>
-      <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document how the testing and
+        Committee representatives,</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document how the testing and
         implementation requirements identified as part of the transition to Last
-        Call Candidate Recommendation have been met.</li>
-      <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> identify where errata are
-        tracked.</li>
+        Call Candidate Recommendation have been met,</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> identify where errata are tracked, and</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> remove features identified in the Last
         Call Candidate Recommendation document as "at risk" without repeating
-        the transition to Last Call Candidate Recommendation. <span class="from">(was
-          in 7.4.3)</span> </li>
+        the transition to Last Call Candidate Recommendation.</li>
     </ul>
     <p>The Director</p>
     <ul>
-      <li><span class="new"><em class="rfc2119">should not</em> provisionally
-          approve a Request for publication of a W3C Recommendation less than 35
-          days after the publication of the Last Call Candidate Recommendation
-          on which is it based [editor's note - this is to allow for the patent
-          policy exclusion period to expire].</span></li>
-      <li><span class="new"><em class="rfc2119">may</em> provisionally approve a
+      <li><span><em class="rfc2119">should not</em> provisionally approve a
+          Request for publication of a W3C Recommendation less than 35 days
+          after the publication of the Last Call Candidate Recommendation on
+          which is it based [editor's note - this is to allow for the patent
+          policy exclusion period to expire], and<br>
+        </span></li>
+      <li><span><em class="rfc2119">may</em> provisionally approve a
           Recommendation with minimal implementation experience where there is a
           compelling reason to do so. In such a case, the Director <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
           explain the reasons for that decision. </span></li>
@@ -632,38 +613,38 @@
         a Recommendation</a> below)</h5>
     <p>To publish an Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation, a Working
       Group</p>
-    <ul class="new">
+    <ul>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> republish the document, identifying it
-        as the basis of a Request for Recommendation.</li>
+        as the basis of a Request for Recommendation,</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the document has received <a
-          href="#wide-review">wide review</a></li>
+          href="#wide-review">wide review, and<br>
+        </a></li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> address all errata.</li>
     </ul>
-    <h5>For <strong>all</strong> W3C Recommendations, in addition to meeting
-      the <a href="file:///Users/chaals/Documents/w3c/ab/AB/tr.html#transition-reqs">general
+    <h5 id="for-all-recs">For <strong>all</strong> W3C Recommendations, in
+      addition to meeting the <a href="file:///Users/chaals/Documents/w3c/ab/AB/tr.html#transition-reqs">general
         requirements for advancement</a>,</h5>
     <ul>
       <li>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the provisional
         approval of a Request for publication of a W3C Recommendation to the <a
           href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
-          Committee</a>.</li>
+          Committee</a>,</li>
       <li>The Advisory Committee review of the technical report <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
         continue at least 28 days after the announcement of provisional approval
-        to publish the Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation. <span class="from">(was
-          7.4.4)</span></li>
+        to publish the Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation,</li>
       <li>If there was any <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#def-Dissent"
           rel="glossary" title="Definition of Dissent"><span class="dfn-instance">dissent</span></a>
-        in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director <span class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em>
-          publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general
-          public</span>, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
-          address</a> the comment <span class="new">at least 14 days before
-          publication as a W3C Recommendation</span>. In this case the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
+        in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
+        publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general
+        public, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
+          address</a> the comment &gt;at least 14 days before publication as a
+        W3C Recommendation. In this case the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
           Committee</a> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a>
-        the decision.</li>
+        the decision,</li>
       <li>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the publication
-        of a W3C Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public.</li>
-      <li>The "Status of the Document" <em class="rfc2119 changed">must</em>
-        reflect whether it is provisionally approved, or published as a W3C
+        of a W3C Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public, and</li>
+      <li>The "Status of the Document" <em class="rfc2119">must</em> reflect
+        whether it is provisionally approved, or published as a W3C
         Recommendation.</li>
     </ul>
     <p>Possible next steps:</p>
@@ -674,30 +655,26 @@
           an Edited Recommendation</a>, or</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> be <a href="#rec-rescind">rescinded</a>.</li>
     </ul>
-    <h3>7.5 <a name="tr-end" id="tr-end">Publishing a Working Group <span class="new">or
-          Interest Group</span> Note</a></h3>
-    <p class="new">Working Groups and Interest Groups publish material that is
-      not a formal specification as Notes. This may include supporting
-      documentation for a specification, such as requirements, use cases,
-      non-normative good practices and the like.</p>
+    <h3>7.5 <a name="tr-end" id="tr-end">Publishing a Working Group or Interest
+        Group Note</a></h3>
+    <p>Working Groups and Interest Groups publish material that is not a formal
+      specification as Notes. This may include supporting documentation for a
+      specification, such as requirements, use cases, non-normative good
+      practices and the like.</p>
     <p>Work on a technical report <em class="rfc2119">may</em> cease at any
       time. Work <em class="rfc2119 new">should</em> cease if W3C or a Working
       Group determines that it cannot productively carry the work any further.
       If the Director <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#GeneralTermination">closes
-        a Working Group</a> W3C <em class="rfc2119 changed">must </em><span class="from">(was
-        should ...)</span> publish any unfinished specifications on the
-      Recommendation track as Working Group Notes. If a Working group decides,
-      or the Director requires the Working Group to discontinue work on a
-      technical report before completion <span class="changed">the Working
-        Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em></span> <span class="from">(...
-        but didn't say who should do this)</span> publish the document as a
+        a Working Group</a> W3C <em class="rfc2119">must </em> publish any
+      unfinished specifications on the Recommendation track as Working Group
+      Notes. If a Working group decides, or the Director requires the Working
+      Group to discontinue work on a technical report before completion the
+      Working Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish the document as a
       Working Group Note. </p>
-    <p>In order to publish a Note a Working Group or Interest Group: <span class="from">(copied
-        since notes are excluded from the requirements to move to a new maturity
-        level)</span></p>
+    <p>In order to publish a Note a Working Group or Interest Group: </p>
     <ul>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the group's decision to request
-        advancement.</li>
+        advancement, and</li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> public documentation of significant
         changes to the technical report since the previous publication.</li>
     </ul>
@@ -706,8 +683,8 @@
       <li>End state: A technical report <em class="rfc2119">may</em> remain a
         Working Group Note indefinitely</li>
       <li>A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> resume work on the
-        technical report at any time, <span class="new">at the maturity level
-          the specification had before publication as a Note</span></li>
+        technical report at any time, at the maturity level the specification
+        had before publication as a Note</li>
     </ul>
     <p>The W3C Patent Policy does not specify any licensing requirements or
       commitments for Working Group Notes, only for W3C Recommendations. See
@@ -790,12 +767,10 @@
         Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>]
       and in particular <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-Requirements">section
         5</a> (bullet 10) and <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-PAG-conclude">section
-        7.5</a>. <span class="changed">A Working Group </span><span class="changed"><em
-          class="rfc2119">may</em> request the Director to rescind a
-        Recommendation which was a deliverable, or the Director </span><span class="changed"><em
-          class="rfc2119">may</em> directly propose to rescind a Recommendation.
-      </span><span class="from">(was "the Director calls for review when
-        satisfied that [it is necessary]")</span></p>
+        7.5</a>. A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> request the
+      Director to rescind a Recommendation which was a deliverable, or the
+      Director <em class="rfc2119">may</em> directly propose to rescind a
+      Recommendation. </p>
     <p>To deprecate <em>part</em> of a Recommendation, W3C follows the process
       for <a href="#rec-modify">modifying a Recommendation</a>.</p>
     <p>Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical
@@ -804,13 +779,12 @@
     <p>To propose rescinding a W3C Recommendation, a Working Group or the
       Director</p>
     <ul>
-      <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> publish rationale for
-        rescinding the Recommendation.</li>
-      <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known
-        implementation.</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> publish rationale for rescinding the
+        Recommendation.</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known implementation.</li>
     </ul>
     <p>In addition a Working Group proposing to rescind</p>
-    <ul class="new">
+    <ul>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the request to rescind has
         received <a href="#wide-review">wide review</a></li>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> show that the request to rescind is
@@ -818,8 +792,8 @@
     </ul>
     <p>In addition the Director, if proposing to rescind</p>
     <ul>
-      <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the request to
-        rescind is based on public comment</li>
+      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the request to rescind is
+        based on public comment</li>
     </ul>
     <p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the proposal to
       rescind a W3C Recommendation to other W3C groups, the public, and the <a
@@ -835,14 +809,14 @@
     </ul>
     <p>If there was any <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#def-Dissent"
         rel="glossary" title="Definition of Dissent"><span class="dfn-instance">dissent</span></a>
-      in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director <span class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em>
-        publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C <strong>and the
-          public</strong></span>, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
-        address</a> the comment <span class="new">at least 14 days before
-        publication</span> as a Rescinded Recommendation. In this case the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
+      in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
+      publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C <strong>and the
+        public</strong>, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
+        address</a> the comment &gt;at least 14 days before publication as a
+      Rescinded Recommendation. In this case the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
         Committee</a> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="#ACAppeal">appeal</a>
       the decision.</p>
-    <h3>Good practices</h3>
+    <h3 id="good-practice">Good practices</h3>
     <p>Refer to <a href="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/Transitions">"How to
         Organize a Recommendation Track Transition"</a> in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/">Member
         guide</a> for practical information about preparing for the reviews and