tr.html
author charles
Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:53:35 +0200
changeset 44 0485c9bc01e5
parent 43 ac8cd60df842
child 45 77898864d262
permissions -rw-r--r--
Section 7.6.2 - changes that can affect conformance but don't introduce new features. Changed to allow substantive changes (linked to definition) instead of defining "affect conformance" again. ISSUE-47
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="content-type">
    <title>A Rec-track Process Draft Proposal</title>
    <link href="https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/base.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
    <style type="text/css">
     
      .from {display:none }
        
     .about { margin-left: 3em; margin-right: 3em; font-size: .83em}
     table { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto }
     .diagram { text-align: center; margin: 2.5em 0 }
      .issue { line-height: 125% ; border: dashed red 2px; background-color: yellow }
      .issue::before {content: "Issue: "}
      .issue::after {content: "@@"}
      .rfc2119 {font-variant:small-caps}
</style> <link href="prism.css" rel="stylesheet">
    <link href="https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-ED" rel="stylesheet">
    <!--[if lt IE 9]><script src='undefined://www.w3.org/2008/site/js/html5shiv.js'></script><![endif]-->
  </head>
  <body>
    <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>
      <h2 id="w3c-working-draft-20-september-2012"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium"></abbr>Editors'
        Draft 18 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>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>
        <dd><a href="mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru">Charles (McCathie) Nevile</a>,
          <a href="http://www.yandex.ru">Яндекс</a>—<a href="http://yandex.com">Yandex</a></dd>
      </dl>
      <p class="copyright"> <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright">Copyright</a>
        © 2013 <a href="http://www.w3.org/"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr></a><sup>®</sup>
        (<a href="http://www.csail.mit.edu/"><abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr></a>,
        <a href="http://www.ercim.eu/"><abbr title="European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics">ERCIM</abbr></a>,
        <a href="http://www.keio.ac.jp/">Keio</a>, <a href="http://ev.buaa.edu.cn/">Beihang</a>),
        All Rights Reserved. <abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr>
        <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Legal_Disclaimer">liability</a>,
        <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#W3C_Trademarks">trademark</a>,
        <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents">document
          use</a> and <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software">software
          licensing</a> rules apply. </p>
      <hr> </div>
    <div class="noprint">
      <div class="navbar">
        <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>
        <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
            version</a> was <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013May/0023.html">proposed</a>
          to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">W3C Process
            Community Group</a> on 29 May 2013 by Charles Nevile &lt;<a href="mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru">chaals@yandex-team.ru</a>&gt;
          for discussion. Subsequent editor's drafts have been public, to enable
          broad input. However, following the existing process, the Advisory
          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>
        <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 the 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
          group's issue tracker using the product "<a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/products/1">Document
            Lifecycle (chapter 7)</a>"</p>
        Major changes:
        <ul>
          <li>There is a requirement that Working groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
            document known implementation for all transitions</li>
          <li>New sections give some guidance on what is considered when
            assessing "<a href="#implementation-experience">adequate
              implementation experience</a>" and "<a href="#wide-review">wide
              review</a>"</li>
          <li>Last Call and Candidate Recommendation have been collapsed
            together. Some of the requirements are therefore enforced earlier in
            the process.</li>
          <li>Proposed Recommendation is no longer a separate step. Advisory
            Committee review now begins at the same time as Last Call Candidate
            recommendation, and ends 4 weeks after the Working group has
            provisional approval for a Request to publish as a W3C
            Recommendation.</li>
          <li>The Director is required to address AC review comments <strong>publicly</strong>,
            2 weeks <em>before</em> publication of a Recommendation.</li>
          <li>And it is in HTML5</li>
        </ul>
        <p>Editorially, I have tried to rationalize requirements, and clarify
          who is responsible for meeting them. I have also actively removed
          advice and general statements to keep this version short.</p>
      </div>
    </div>
    <h2>7 <a name="Reports" id="Reports">W3C Technical Report Development
        Process</a></h2>
    <p>The W3C technical report development process is the set of steps and
      requirements followed by W3C <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#GroupsWG">Working
        Groups</a> to standardize Web technology. The W3C technical report
      development process is designed to </p>
    <ul>
      <li>support multiple specification development methodologies</li>
      <li>maximize <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#def-consensus"
          rel="glossary" title="Definition of Consensus"><span class="dfn-instance">consensus</span></a>
        about the content of stable technical reports</li>
      <li>ensure high technical and editorial quality</li>
      <li>promote consistency among specifications</li>
      <li>facilitate royalty-free, interoperable implementations of Web
        Standards, and</li>
      <li>earn endorsement by W3C and the broader community. </li>
    </ul>
    <p>See also the licensing goals for W3C Recommendations in <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-Licensing">section
        2</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>
    <p>
      <svg xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
        viewBox="0.00 0.00 400.00 62.00" height="5em" width="36em">
        <g transform="scale(1 1) rotate(0) translate(4 58)" class="graph" id="graph0">
          <g class="node" id="wd">
            <ellipse ry="18" rx="38.1938" cy="-18" cx="147" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
            <a xlink:href="#RecsWD"><text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif"
                y="-14.3" x="147" text-anchor="middle">WD</text></a> </g>
          <g class="edge" id="edge1">
            <a xlink:href="#first-wd"><text font-size="8.00" font-family="Times,serif"
                y="-20" x="66" text-anchor="left">First WD</text></a>
            <path d="M66,-18h32.25" stroke="black" fill="none"></path>
            <polygon points="98.5289,-21.5001 108.529,-18 98.5289,-14.5001 98.5289,-21.5001"
              stroke="black" fill="black"></polygon> </g>
          <g class="edge" id="edge2">
            <path d="M128.006,-33.916C123.052,-44.1504 129.383,-54 147,-54 158.561,-54 165.262,-49.7581 167.102,-43.9494"
              stroke="black" fill="none"></path>
            <polygon points="170.571,-43.471 165.994,-33.916 163.613,-44.24 170.571,-43.471"
              stroke="black" fill="black"></polygon> </g>
          <g class="node" id="lccr">
            <ellipse ry="18" rx="37.8943" cy="-18" cx="260" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
            <a xlink:href="#RecsCR"><text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif"
                y="-14.3" x="260" text-anchor="middle">LCCR</text></a> </g>
          <g class="edge" id="lccr-repeat">
            <path d="M183.12,-11.67h30.5" stroke="black" fill="none"></path>
            <polygon points="214.378,-14.8689 224.487,-11.6987 214.607,-7.87265 214.378,-14.8689"
              stroke="black" fill="black"></polygon> </g>
          <g class="edge" id="edge4">
            <path d="M242.388,-33.916C237.793,-44.1504 243.664,-54 260,-54 270.72,-54 276.934,-49.7581 278.64,-43.9494"
              stroke="black" fill="none"></path>
            <polygon points="282.114,-43.5071 277.612,-33.916 275.15,-44.2208 282.114,-43.5071"
              stroke="black" fill="black"></polygon> </g>
          <g class="edge" id="edge5">
            <path d="M224.5,-24.5h-31.2" stroke="black" fill="none"></path>
            <polygon points="193.226,-21.1436 183.121,-24.3281 193.006,-28.1402 193.226,-21.1436"
              stroke="black" fill="black"></polygon> </g>
          <g class="node" id="node4">
            <ellipse ry="18" rx="28.6953" cy="-18" cx="363" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
            <a xlink:href="#RecsW3C"><text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif"
                y="-14.3" x="363" text-anchor="middle">REC</text></a> </g>
          <g class="edge" id="edge6">
            <path d="M297.75,-18h26.5" stroke="black" fill="none"></path>
            <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">
      <!--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
          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>
        </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
          Recommendation</a>
        <ul>
          <li><a href="#mozTocId647636">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>
            </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
              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>
            </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>
        <ul>
          <li><a href="#mozTocId72619">7.6.1 Errata Management</a></li>
          <li><a href="#mozTocId171734">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>
    </ul>
    <h3>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>]
      is available at the W3C Web site. W3C will make every effort to make
      archival documents indefinitely available at their original address in
      their original form.</p>
    <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>
    <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">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>
    </ul>
    <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
        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
        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>
    <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>
      <dd>A Working Draft is a document that W3C has published for review by the
        community, including W3C Members, the public, and other technical
        organizations. Some, but not all, Working Drafts are meant to advance to
        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>
      <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
        that Satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements, and has
        already received wide review. W3C publishes a Last Call Candidate
        Recommendation to
        <ul>
          <li>signal to the wider community that a final review should be done</li>
          <li>gather <a href="#implementation-experience">implementation
              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>
        </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>
      <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
        of W3C Members and the Director. W3C recommends the wide deployment of
        its Recommendations as standards for the Web.</dd>
      <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>
      <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
        W3C Recommendations in <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-Requirements">section
          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>
    <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> <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
          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>
    </ul>
    <p>Because the requirements for First Public Working Drafts are fairly
      mechanical approval is normally fairly automatic, whereas for later stages
      there is generally a formal review meeting to ensure the requirements have
      been met before Director's approval is given.</p>
    <ul>
    </ul>
    <h4 id="substantive-change">7.2.1 Substantive Change</h4>
    <p> A <dfn>substantive change</dfn> (whether deletion, inclusion, or other
      modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that making the
      change would invalidate an individual's review or implementation
      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>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
      considered positive evidence of wide review. A recommended practice is
      making a specific announcement to other W3C Working Groups as well as the
      general public that a group proposes to enter Last Call Candidate
      Recommendation in e.g. approximately four weeks. By contrast a generic
      statement in a document requesting review at any time is likely not to be
      considered as sufficient evidence that the group has solicited wide
      review. </p>
    <p>A Working Group could present evidence that wide review has been
      received, irrespective of solicitation. But it is important to note that
      receiving many detailed reviews is not necessarily the same as wide
      review, since they may only represent comment from a small segment of the
      relevant stakeholder community.</p>
    <h4 id="implementation-experience">7.2.3 Implementation Experience</h4>
    <p>Implementation experience is required to show that a specification is
      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>
    <ul>
      <li>is each feature implemented, and how is this demonstrated; (for
        example, is there a test suite)?</li>
      <li>are there independent interoperable implementations?</li>
      <li>are there implementations created by other than the authors of the
        specification?</li>
      <li>are implementations publicly deployed?</li>
      <li>is there implementation experience at all levels of the
        specification's ecosystem (creation, consuming, publishing…)?</li>
    </ul>
    <p>Planning and accomplishing a demonstration of (interoperable)
      implementations can be very time consuming. Groups are often able to work
      more effectively if they plan how they will demonstrate interoperable
      implementations early in the development process; for example, they may
      wish to develop tests in concert with implementation efforts.</p>
    <ul>
    </ul>
    <h3>7.3 <a name="doc-reviews" id="doc-reviews">Reviews and Review
        Responsibilities</a></h3>
    <p>A document is available for review from the moment it is first published.
      Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
        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>
    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
        to Recommendation</a></h3>
    <p>W3C follows these steps when advancing a technical report to
      Recommendation.</p>
    <ol>
      <li><a href="#first-wd">Publication of the First Public Working Draft</a>,</li>
      <li><a href="#hb-wd">Publication of zero or more revised Public Working
          Drafts</a>.</li>
      <li><a href="#last-call">Publication of a Last Call Candidate
          Recommendation</a>.</li>
      <li><a href="#rec-publication">Publication as a Recommendation</a>.</li>
      <li>Possibly, <a href="#rec-edited">Publication as an Edited
          Recommendation</a></li>
    </ol>
    <p>W3C <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="#tr-end">end work on a
        technical report</a> at any time.</p>
    <p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">may</em> decline a request to advance
      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
        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>
    <h4 id="working-draft">7.4.1 Working Draft</h4>
    <h5>7.4.1.a <a name="first-wd" id="first-wd">First Public Working Draft</a></h5>
    <p>To publish the First Public Working Draft of a document, in addition to
      meeting the <a href="#transition-reqs">general requirements for
        advancement</a> a Working Group</p>
    <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>
      <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>
    <p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the publication of a
      First Public Working Draft publication to other W3C groups and to the
      public. </p>
    <p>Publishing the First Public Working Draft triggers a Call for Exclusions,
      per <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-Exclusion">section
        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.
      <meta charset="utf-8">
    </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>
    <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>
      <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>
      <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>
      <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 outstanding issues and parts
        of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus.</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>
    <p>Possible next steps:</p>
    <ul>
      <li><a href="#hb-wd">Revised Public Working Draft</a></li>
      <li><a href="#last-call">Last Call Candidate recommendation</a>.</li>
      <li><a href="#tr-end">Working Group Note</a></li>
    </ul>
    <h4>7.4.2 <a name="last-call" id="last-call">Last Call Candidate
        Recommendation </a></h4>
    <p>To publish a Last Call Candidate recommendation, in addition to meeting
      the <a href="#transition-reqs">general requirements for advancement</a> a
      Working Group</p>
    <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>
      <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>
      <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>
      <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
        publish a new Last Call Candidate Recommendation.</li>
    </ul>
    <p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the publication of a
      Last Call Candidate Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public.
    </p>
    <p> A Last Call Candidate Recommendation corresponds to a "Last Call Working
      Draft" as used 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>].
      Publishing a Last Call Candidate Recommendation triggers a Call for
      Exclusions, per <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-Exclusion">section
        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>
    <p>Possible next steps:</p>
    <ul>
      <li>Return to <a href="#hb-wd">Working Draft</a></li>
      <li>Return to <a href="#last-call">Last Call Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
      <li><a href="#rec-publication">Request Recommendation status</a> (The
        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> <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>
    <h4>7.4.3 <a name="rec-publication" id="rec-publication">Publication of a
        W3C Recommendation</a></h4>
    <h5><a name="lcrec-publication" id="lcrec-publication">Publishing a Last
        Call Candidate Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation</a></h5>
    <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> show that the document has received <a
          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 formally
        addressed.</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
        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>
      <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>
    </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
          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>
    </ul>
    <h5 id="rec-edited">Publishing an Edited Recommendation (See also <a href="#rec-modify">Modifying
        a Recommendation</a> below)</h5>
    <p>To publish an Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation, a Working
      Group</p>
    <ul class="new">
      <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 that the document has received <a
          href="#wide-review">wide review</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
        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>
      <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>
      <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
          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>
      <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
        Recommendation.</li>
    </ul>
    <p>Possible next steps:</p>
    <ul>
      <li>A W3C Recommendation normally retains its status indefinitely. However
        it</li>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> be <a href="#rec-modify">republished as
          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>
    <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
      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>
    <ul>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the group's decision to request
        advancement.</li>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> public documentation of significant
        changes to the technical report since the previous publication.</li>
    </ul>
    <p>Possible next steps:</p>
    <ul>
      <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>
    </ul>
    <p>The W3C Patent Policy does not specify any licensing requirements or
      commitments for Working Group Notes, only for W3C Recommendations. See
      also 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>
    <h3>7.6 <a name="rec-modify" id="rec-modify">Modifying a W3C Recommendation</a></h3>
    <p>The following sections discuss the management of errors and the process
      for making normative changes to a Recommendation.</p>
    <h4>7.6.1 <a name="errata" id="errata">Errata Management</a></h4>
    <p>Tracking errors is an important part of a Working Group's ongoing care of
      a Recommendation; for this reason, the scope of a Working Group charter
      generally allows time for work after publication of a Recommendation. In
      this Process Document, the term "erratum" (plural "errata") refers to any
      class of mistake, from mere editorial to a serious error that may affect
      the conformance with the Recommendation by software or content (e.g.,
      content validity). <strong>Note:</strong> Before a document becomes a
      Recommendation, the W3C Process focuses on <a href="#substantive-change">substantive
        changes</a> (those related to prior reviews). After a document has been
      published as Recommendation, the W3C Process focuses on those changes to a
      technical report that might affect the conformance of content or deployed
      software.</p>
    <p>Working Groups <span class="rfc2119">must</span> track errata on an
      "errata page." An errata page is a list of enumerated errors, possibly
      accompanied by corrections. Each Recommendation links to an errata page;
      see the Team's <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication
        Rules</a>.</p>
    <p>A correction is first "proposed" by the Working Group. A correction
      becomes normative by the process described below.</p>
    <p>A Working Group <span class="rfc2119">should</span> keep their errata
      pages up-to-date, as errors are reported by readers and implementers. A
      Working Group <span class="rfc2119">must</span> report errata page
      changes to interested parties, notably when corrections are proposed or
      become normative, according to the Team's requirements. For instance, the
      Team might set up a mailing list per Recommendation where a Working Group
      reports changes to an errata page.</p>
    <h4>7.6.2 <a name="correction-classes" id="correction-classes">Classes of
        Changes to a Recommendation</a></h4>
    <p>This document distinguishes the following classes of changes to a
      Recommendation.</p>
    <dl>
      <dt>1. No changes to text content</dt>
      <dd>These changes include fixing broken style sheets or invalid markup.</dd>
      <dt>2. Corrections to references</dt>
      <dd>Updates to references, e.g. because the original reference is outdated
        or no longer available, that do not affect conformance to the
        specification.</dd>
      <dt>3. Corrections that do not add new features</dt>
      <dd>These changes <span class="rfc2119">may</span> be <a href="#substantive-change">substantive
          changes</a>, but <span class="rfc2119">must not</span> introduce new
        features to the specification.</dd>
      <dt>4. New features</dt>
    </dl>
    <p>The first two classes of change require no technical review of the
      proposed changes. A Working Group <span class="rfc2119">may</span>
      request republication of a Recommenation for these classes of change, or
      W3C <span class="rfc2119">may</span> republish a Recommendation with this
      class of change. The modified Recommendation is published according to the
      Team's requirements, including <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication
        Rules</a> [<a href="refs.html#ref-pubrules">PUB31</a>] and the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/republishing/">Requirements
        for modification of W3C Technical Reports</a> [PUB@@].</p>
    <p>For the third class of change, a Working Group <span class="rfc2119">must</span>
      request publication of an <a href="#rec-edited">Edited Recommendation</a>.</p>
    <p>For the fourth class of change, which introduces a new feature or
      features, W3C <span class="rfc2119">must</span> follow the full process
      of <a href="#rec-advance">advancing a technical report to Recommendation</a>.</p>
    <h3>7.7 <a name="rec-rescind" id="rec-rescind">Rescinding a W3C
        Recommendation</a></h3>
    <p>W3C <em class="rfc2119">may</em> rescind a Recommendation, for example
      if the Recommendation contains many errors that conflict with a later
      version or if W3C discovers burdensome patent claims that affect
      implementers and cannot be resolved; see 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>]
      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>
    <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
      reports <em class="rfc2119">must not</em> include normative references to
      that technical report.</p>
    <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>
    </ul>
    <p>In addition a Working Group proposing to rescind</p>
    <ul class="new">
      <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
        based on public comment</li>
    </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>
    </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
        href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
        Committee</a>. The announcement <em class="rfc2119">must</em>:</p>
    <ul>
      <li>indicate that this is a Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation</li>
      <li>specify the deadline for review comments, which <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
        be at least <span class="time-interval">four weeks after publication </span></li>
      <li>identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent
        Working Groups;</li>
      <li>solicit public review.</li>
    </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
        Committee</a> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="#ACAppeal">appeal</a>
      the decision.</p>
    <h3>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
      announcements of the various steps, and <a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/05/rec-tips">tips
        on getting to Recommendation faster</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-rec-tips">PUB27</a>].</p>
    <div class="noprint">
      <div class="navbar"> <map name="navbar-bottom" title="Navigation Bar" id="navbar-bottom">
          <p>[<a accesskey="c" rel="Contents" href="#toc">contents</a>] </p>
        </map>
      </div>
    </div>
  </body>
</html>