author charles
Tue, 04 Feb 2014 22:12:13 +0400
changeset 75 54a90926f61d
parent 74 ca9d3f3cd36f
child 76 20fb4f012006
permissions -rw-r--r--
Editorial tweaking in connection with reinstating PR
<!DOCTYPE html>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="content-type">
    <title>A Rec-track Process Draft Proposal</title>
    <link href="" 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="" rel="stylesheet">
    <!--[if lt IE 9]><script src='undefined://'></script><![endif]-->
    <div class="head">
      <p> <a href=""><img alt="W3C" src=""
            height="48" width="72"></a> </p>
      <h1 class="title" id="title">Recommendation Track Process draft proposal</h1>
      <h2 id="draft-shorthand-status"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium"></abbr>Editors'
        Draft 2 February 2014</h2>
        <dt>Current active version:</dt>
        <dd><a href=""></a></dd>
        <dt>Latest editor's draft:</dt>
        <dd> <a href=""></a></dd>
        <dd><a href="">Charles (McCathie) Nevile</a>,
          <a href="">Яндекс</a>—<a href="">Yandex</a></dd>
      <p class="copyright"> <a href="">Copyright</a>
        © 2013 <a href=""><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr></a><sup>®</sup>
        (<a href=""><abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr></a>,
        <a href=""><abbr title="European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics">ERCIM</abbr></a>,
        <a href="">Keio</a>, <a href="">Beihang</a>),
        All Rights Reserved. <abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr>
        <a href="">liability</a>,
        <a href="">trademark</a>,
        <a href="">document
          use</a> and <a href="">software
          licensing</a> rules apply. </p>
      <hr> </div>
    <div class="noprint">
      <div class="navbar">
        <p>This is a draft proposal to replace the <a href="">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's Chapter 7 Task Force on 3 February 2014. As foreshadowed at
          that meeting and in email to the W3Process Community Group, this draft
          re-establishes a Proposed Recommendation phase, and clarifies the
          requirements for revising a Candidate Recommendation.</p>
        <p>This introductory section (before the chapter title below) will be
          removed when this chapter is re-incorporated into the full process
        <p>An initial version was first proposed to the W3C Advisory Board on 13
          May 2013 as a possible replacement for the <a href="">current
            chapter 7 of the W3C process document</a>, and a <a href="">subsequent
            version</a> was <a href="">proposed</a>
          to the <a href="">W3C Process
            Community Group</a> on 29 May 2013 by Charles Nevile &lt;<a href=""></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="">existing
            process for such changes</a>, subject to the resolution of <a href="">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, Elika
          Etimad, Fantasai, Daniel Glazman, Ivan 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 progress of a W3C Recommendation-track
          document. </p>
        <p>Please send comments on this document to, or participate in, the <a
            href="">W3C Process Community
            Group</a>. Issues related to this proposal are recorded in that
          group's issue tracker using the product "<a href="">Document
            Lifecycle (chapter 7)</a>"</p>
        <h4> Major changes: </h4>
          <li>New requirements that Working groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
            document known implementation and <span class="rfc2119">must</span>
            document expected next steps for all publications </li>
          <li>New requirement that Working groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
            publish abandoned work as a W3C Note</li>
          <li>Recognition that Interest Groups <span class="rfc2119">may</span>
            publish W3C Notes</li>
          <li>If W3C closes a Working Group, they <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
            republish its unfinished work as Notes. </li>
          <li>Implementation requirements for passing beyond Candidate
            Recommendation are not simply listed as "2 interoperable
            implementations", instead a new sections gives guidance on what is
            considered when assessing "<a href="#implementation-experience">adequate
              implementation experience</a>".</li>
          <li>Instead of relying on a Last Call publication for adequate review
            there is a requirement for a Working Group to demonstrate "<a href="#wide-review">wide
              review</a>", while leaving them to achieve this as they see fit.</li>
          <li>There is a stronger emphasis (without creating new formal
            requirements) on getting review and testing implementation as early
            as possible. How to do this is left to Working Groups to determine.</li>
          <li>Last Call and Candidate Recommendation have been collapsed
            together. Some of the requirements are therefore enforced earlier in
            the process.</li>
          <li>Advisory Committee review now begins at the same time as Candidate
            recommendation, and ends 4 weeks after publication as a Proposed
          <li>The Director is required to address dissenting AC review comments
            <strong>publicly</strong>, 2 weeks <em>before</em> publication of a
          <li>Errata cannot be made normative except by republishing a
            Recommendation or a Revised Recommendation</li>
          <li>And it is in HTML5</li>
        <p>Editorially, I have tried to rationalize requirements and clarify who
          is responsible for meeting them. I have also removed advice and
          general statements to keep this version short.</p>
    <h2 id="Reports">7 W3C Technical Report Development Process</h2>
    <p>The W3C technical report development process is the set of steps and
      requirements followed by W3C <a href="">Working
        Groups</a> to standardize Web technology. The W3C technical report
      development process is designed to </p>
      <li>support multiple specification development methodologies</li>
      <li>maximize <a href=""
          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>
    <p>See also the licensing goals for W3C Recommendations in <a href="">section
        2</a> of the <a href="">W3C
        Patent Policy</a> [<a href="">PUB33</a>].
    <h3>Table of Contents</h3>
    <ul id="mozToc">
      <!--mozToc h3 1 h4 2 h5 3-->
      <li><a href="#rec-advance">7.1 W3C Technical Reports</a>
          <li><a href="#recs-and-notes">7.1.1 Recommendations and Notes</a></li>
          <li><a href="#maturity-levels">7.1.2 Maturity Levels</a></li>
      <li><a href="#requirements-and-definitions">7.2 General requirements and
          <li><a href="#general-requirements">7.2.1 General requirements for
              Technical Reports</a></li>
          <li><a href="#transition-reqs">7.2.2 Advancement on the Recommendation
              <li><a href="#substantive-change"> Substantive Change</a></li>
          <li><a href="#doc-reviews">7.2.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</a>
              <li><a href="#wide-review"> Wide Review</a></li>
          <li><a href="#implementation-experience">7.2.4 Implementation
              Experience</a> </li>
          <li><a href="#correction-classes">7.2.5 Classes of Changes to a
      <li><a href="#working-draft">7.3 Working Draft</a>
          <li><a href="#first-wd">7.3.1 First Public Working Draft</a></li>
          <li><a href="#revised-wd">7.3.2 Revised Public Working Drafts</a></li>
          <li><a href="#tr-end"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">7.3.3
                Stopping work on a specification</span></a></li>
      <li><a href="#candidate-rec">7.4 Candidate Recommendation</a>
          <li><a href="#revised-cr">7.4.1 Revised Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
      <li><a href="#rec-publication">7.5 W3C Recommendation</a>
          <li><a href="#for-all-recs">7.5.1 For all W3C Recommendations</a></li>
          <li><a href="#lcrec-publication">7.5.2 Publishing a Candidate
              Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
      <li> <a href="#rec-pr">7.6 Proposed Recommendation</a></li>
      <li><a href="#rec-modify">7.7 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</a>
          <li><a href="#errata">7.7.1 Errata Management</a></li>
          <li><a href="#revised-rec">7.7.2 Revising a Recommendation</a></li>
      <li><a href="#Note">7.8 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note</a></li>
      <li><a href="#good-practice">7.9 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
      <li><a href="#mozTocId806006">Further reading</a></li>
    <h3 id="rec-advance">7.1 W3C Technical Reports</h3>
    <p>This chapter describes the formal requirements for publishing and
      maintaining a W3C Recommendation or Note. </p>
    <p>Typically a series of Working Drafts are published, each of which refines
      a document under development to complete the scope of work envisioned by a
      Working Group's charter. For a technical specification, once review
      suggests the work has been completed and the document is good enough to
      become a new standard, there will then be a Candidate Recommendation phase
      allowing review by the W3C membership and to formally collect
      implementation experience to ensure it works in practice, followed by
      Publication as a Recommendation.</p>
    <p>Groups may also publish documents as W3C Notes. The two common purposes
      for Notes are </p>
      <li>to document information that is not a formal technical specification,
        such as use cases motivating a specification and best practices for its
        use, and</li>
      <li>to clarify the status of work that is abandoned, that there is no
        longer interest in completing it so it should not be assumed that will
        become a standard.</li>
    <p>Some W3C Notes are developed through successive Working Drafts, with an
      expectation that they will become Notes, while others are simply
      Published. There are few formal requirements to publish a document as a
      W3C Note, and they have no standing as a recommendation of W3C but are
      simply documents preserved for historical reference.</p>
    <p>Individual Working Groups and Interest Groups may adopt additional
      processes for developing publications, so long as they do not conflict
      with the requirements in this chapter.</p>
    <h4 id="recs-and-notes">7.1.1 Recommendations and Notes</h4>
    <p>W3C follows these steps when advancing a technical report to
      <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
      <li><a href="#last-call">Publication of a 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
      <svg xlink="" xmlns=""
        viewBox="0.00 0.00 450.00 62.00" height="5em" width="45em">
        <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">CR</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" stroke-dasharray="5 3"></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="#RecsPR"><text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif"
                y="-14.3" x="363" text-anchor="middle">PR</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 class="node" id="node5">
            <ellipse ry="18" rx="28.6953" cy="-18" cx="443" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
            <a xlink:href="#RecsW3C"><text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif"
                y="-14.3" x="443" text-anchor="middle">REC</text></a> </g>
          <g class="edge" id="edge7">
            <path d="M391.75,-18h20.5" stroke="black" fill="none"></path>
            <polygon points="404.306,-21.5 414.306,-18 404.306,-14.5 404.306,-21.5"
              stroke="black" fill="black"></polygon> </g> </g> </svg> </p>
    <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>
      inform the <a href="">Advisory
        Committee</a> and Working Group Chairs when a Working Group's request
      for a specification to advance in maturity level is declined and the
      specification is returned to a Working Group for further work.</p>
    <h4 id="maturity-levels">7.1.2 Maturity Levels</h4>
      <dt id="RecsWD">Working Draft (WD)</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> 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 id="RecsCR">Candidate Recommendation (CR)</dt>
      <dd class="changed">A Candidate Recommendation is a document that
        Satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements, and has already
        received wide review. W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to
          <li>signal to the wider community that a final review should be done</li>
          <li>gather <a href="#implementation-experience">implementation
          <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. </li>
      <dd class="new"><strong>Note:</strong> Candidate Recommendation is the
        state referred to in the <a href="">W3C
          Patent Policy</a> [<a href="">PUB33</a>]
        as "Last Call Working Draft"</dd>
      <dd><strong>Note:</strong> 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>Proposed Recommendation</dt>
      <dd>A Proposed Recommendation is a document that has been accepted by the
        W3C Director as of sufficient quality to become a W3C Recommendation.
        This phase establishes a deadline for the Advisory Committee review
        which begins with Candidate Recommendation. Substantive changes <span class="rfc2119">must</span>
        not be made to a Proposed Recommendation except by publishing a new
        Candidate Recommendation.</dd>
      <dt id="RecsW3C">W3C Recommendation (REC)</dt>
      <dd>A W3C Recommendation is a specification or set of guidelines or
        requirements 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 id="WGNote">Working Group Note, Interest Group Note (NOTE) </dt>
      <dd>A Working Group Note or Interest Group Note is published by a
        chartered Working Group or Interest Group to provide a stable reference
        for a document that is not intended to be a specification requiring
        conformance, but is nevertheless useful. Examples include supporting
        documents such as Use case and Requirements documents, Design Principles
        that explain what the Working Group was trying to achieve with a
        specification, or '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 id="RescindedRec">Rescinded Recommendation</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="">section
          5</a> of the <a href="">W3C
          Patent Policy</a> [<a href="">PUB33</a>].</dd>
    <p>Working Groups and Interest Groups <em class="rfc2119">may</em> make
      available "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.</p>
    <h3 id="requirements-and-definitions">7.2 General requirements and
    <h4 id="general-requirements">7.2.1 General requirements for Technical
    <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="">index
        of W3C technical reports</a> [<a href="">PUB11</a>]
      is available at the W3C Web site. W3C strives 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> clearly indicate its <a href="#maturity-levels">maturity
        level</a>, and <em id="DocumentStatus" class="rfc2119">must</em>
      include information about the status of the document. This status
      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> be unique each time a specification is
        <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">must</em> include expectations about next steps,</li>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> explain how the technology relates to
        existing international standards and related work inside or outside W3C,
      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> explain or link to an explanation of
        significant changes from the previous version.</li>
    <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> 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="">Publication
        Rules</a> (e.g., for <a name="DocumentName" id="DocumentName">naming</a>,
      status information, 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 Committee 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="">Information
        about translations of W3C technical reports</a> [<a href="">PUB18</a>]
      is available at the W3C Web site.</p>
    <h4 id="transition-reqs">7.2.2 Advancement on the Recommendation Track</h4>
    <p>For <em>all</em> requests to advance a specification to a new maturity
      level other than Note the Working Group:</p>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the group's decision to request
      <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="">formally
          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
      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> report which, if any, of the Working
        Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous
      <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>
    <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>
    <p>Note that for a First Public Working Draft there is no "previous maturity
    <h4 id="doc-reviews">7.2.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</h4>
    <p>A document is available for review from the moment it is first published.
      Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em> <a href="">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 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.
    <h5> <a id="wide-review">Wide Review</a></h5>
    <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
      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, especially the sub-communities thereof that are affected
      by this specification, that a group proposes to enter 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">7.2.4 Implementation Experience</h4>
    <p>Implementation experience is required to show that a specification is
      sufficiently clear, complete, and relevant to market needs, to ensure 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 <dfn>adequate
        implementation experience</dfn> the Director will consider (though not
      be limited to):</p>
      <li>is each feature of the current specification implemented, and how is
        this demonstrated; (for example, is there a test suite)?</li>
      <li>are there independent interoperable implementations of the current
      <li>are there implementations created by other than the authors of the
      <li>are implementations publicly deployed?</li>
      <li>is there implementation experience at all levels of the
        specification's ecosystem (creation, consuming, publishing…)?</li>
    <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>
    <h4 id="correction-classes">7.2.5 Classes of Changes</h4>
    <p>This document distinguishes the following 4 classes of changes to a
      specification. The first two classes of change are considered <dfn id="editorial-change">editorial
        changes</dfn>, the latter two <dfn id="substantive-change">substantive
      <dt>1. No changes to text content</dt>
      <dd>These changes include fixing broken links, style sheets or invalid
      <dt>2. Corrections that do not affect conformance</dt>
      <dd>Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the technical
        content of the specification.</dd>
      <dt>3. Corrections that do not add new features</dt>
      <dd>These changes <span class="rfc2119">may</span> affect conformance to
        the specification. A change that affects conformance is one that:
          <li>turns conforming data, processors, or other conforming agents into
            non-conforming agents, or</li>
          <li>turns non-conforming agents into conforming ones, or</li>
          <li>clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the
            specification in such a way that an agent whose conformance was once
            unclear becomes clearly conforming or non-conforming.</li>
      <dt>4. New features</dt>
    <h3 id="working-draft">7.3 Working Draft</h3>
    <p>A Public Working Draft is published on the W3C's Technical Reports page
      [TR] for review, and for simple historical reference. For all Public
      Working Drafts a Working Group</p>
      <li> <em class="rfc2119">should</em> document outstanding issues, and
        parts 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 its content is considered unstable and does not meet all Working
        Group requirements.</li>
    <h4 id="first-wd">7.3.1 First Public Working Draft</h4>
    <p>To publish the First Public Working Draft of a document, a Working Group
      must meet the <a href="#transition-reqs">general requirements for
    <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="">section
        4</a> of the <a href="">W3C
        Patent Policy</a> [<a href="">PUB33</a>].</p>
    <h4 id="revised-wd">7.3.2 Revised Public Working Drafts</h4>
    <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>To publish a revised Working draft, a Working Group </p>
      <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
      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> report any changes in dependencies
        with other groups,</li>
    <p>Possible next steps for any Working Draft:</p>
      <li><a href="#hb-wd">Revised Public Working Draft</a></li>
      <li><a href="#last-call">Candidate recommendation</a>.</li>
      <li><a href="#Note">Working Group Note</a></li>
    <h4 id="tr-end">7.3.3 Stopping Work on a specification</h4>
    <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="">closes
        a Working Group</a> W3C <em class="rfc2119">must </em> publish any
      unfinished specifications on the Recommendation track as <a href="#Note">Working
        Group Notes</a>. 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 <a href="#Note">Working Group Note</a>. </p>
    <h3 id="candidate-rec"><a name="last-call" id="last-call">7.4 Candidate
        Recommendation </a></h3>
    <p>To publish a Candidate recommendation, in addition to meeting the <a href="#transition-reqs">general
        requirements for advancement</a> a Working Group</p>
      <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><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">must</em> be <strong>at least</strong> 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 Candidate
        Recommendation, <em class="rfc2119">must</em> document the changes
        since the previous 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
        publish a new Candidate Recommendation.</li>
    <p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the publication of a
      Candidate Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
      begin an Advisory Committee Review of the specification on publication.</p>
    <p> A Candidate Recommendation corresponds to a "Last Call Working Draft" as
      used in the <a href="">W3C
        Patent Policy</a> [<a href="">PUB33</a>].
      Publishing a Candidate Recommendation triggers a Call for Exclusions, per
      <a href="">section
        4</a> of the <a href="">W3C
        Patent Policy</a> [<a href="">PUB33</a>].</p>
    <p>Possible next steps:</p>
      <li>Return to <a href="#hb-wd">Working Draft</a></li>
      <li>Return to <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
      <li><a href="#rec-publication">Request Recommendation status</a> (The
        expected next step)</li>
      <li><a href="#Note">Working Group Note</a></li>
    <p class="issue">Add an explanation of publishing a revised Candidate
      Recommendation. <a href="">ISSUE-77</a></p>
    <p>If there are any <a href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a>
      made to a 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 Candidate Recommendation
      before the Working Group can request Recommendation status.</p>
    <p> <a href="">Advisory
        Committee</a> representatives <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="">appeal</a>
      the decision to advance the technical report.</p>
    <h4 id="revised-cr">7.4.1 Revised Candidate Recommendation</h4>
    <h3 id="rec-pr">7.5 Proposed Recommendation</h3>
    <p>In addition to meeting the <a href="#transition-reqs">general
        requirements for advancement</a>,</p>
      <li>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the Request for
        publication of a Proposed Recommendation to the <a href="">Advisory
          Committee</a>, and</li>
      <li>The deadline for Advisory Committee review of the technical report <em
          class="rfc2119">must</em> be <strong>at least</strong> 28 days after
        the publication of the Proposed Recommendation.</li>
    <p>a Working Group</p>
      <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> except where an exception is approved by the Director,</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
        Candidate Recommendation review period other than by Advisory Committee
        representatives have been <a href="">formally
      <li><em class="rfc2119">must </em>identify any substantive issues raised
        since the close of the Candidate Recommendation review period by parties
        other than Advisory Committee representatives,</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
        Candidate Recommendation document as "at risk" without repeating the
        transition to Candidate Recommendation.</li>
    <p>The Director</p>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the Request for publication of
        a Proposed Recommendation to the <a href="">Advisory
          Committee</a>, and</li>
      <li>The deadline for Advisory Committee review of the technical report <em
          class="rfc2119">must</em> be <strong>at least</strong> 28 days after
        the publication of the Proposed Recommendation.</li>
      <li> <span><em class="rfc2119">should not</em>&nbsp; approve a Request
          for publication of a Proposed Recommendation less than 35 days after
          the publication of the Candidate Recommendation on which is it based
          [editor's note - this is to allow for the patent policy exclusion
          period to expire], and </span></li>
      <li><span><em class="rfc2119">may</em>&nbsp; approve a Proposed
          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>
    <h3 id="rec-publication">7.6 W3C Recommendation</h3>
    <h4 id="for-all-recs"><a id="rec-requirements">7.6.1 For <strong>all</strong>
        W3C Recommendations</a></h4>
    <p>In addition to meeting the <a href="#transition-reqs">general
        requirements for advancement</a>,</p>
      <li>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the provisional
        approval of a Request for publication of a W3C Recommendation to the <a
      <li>If there was any <a href=""
          rel="glossary" title="Definition of Dissent"><span class="dfn-instance">dissent</span></a>
        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="">formally
          address</a> the comment at least 14 days before publication as a W3C
        Recommendation. In this case the <a href="">Advisory
          Committee</a> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="">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>
    <p>Possible next steps:</p>
    <p>A W3C Recommendation normally retains its status indefinitely. However it</p>
      <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>
    <h3 id="rec-modify">7.7 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</h3>
    <p>The following sections discuss the management of errors and the process
      for making changes to a Recommendation.</p>
    <h4 id="errata">7.7.1 Errata Management</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
    <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="">Publication
    <p>A correction is first "proposed" by the Working Group. A correction
      becomes part of the Recommendation 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
      incorporated into an Edited Recommendation, according to the Team's
    <h4 id="revised-rec">7.7.2 Revising a Recommendation</h4>
    <p>Editorial changes to a Recommendation require no technical review of the
      proposed changes. A Working Group <span class="rfc2119">may</span>
      request republication of a Recommendation 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="">Publication
        Rules</a> [<a href="refs.html#ref-pubrules">PUB31</a>] and the <a href="">Requirements
        for modification of W3C Technical Reports</a> [PUB@@].</p>
    <p>For substantive changes that do not add new features, a Working Group <span
        class="rfc2119">must</span> request publication of an <a href="#rec-edited">Edited
    <p>To publish an Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation, in addition
      to meeting the <a href="#rec-requirements">requirements for all W3C
        Recommendations</a>, a Working Group</p>
      <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>, and </li>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> address all errata.</li>
    <p>For changes 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 id="Note">7.8 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note</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, good practices and the
      like, as well as specifications where work has been stopped and there is
      no longer interest in making them a new standard.</p>
    <p>In order to publish a Note a Working Group or Interest Group: </p>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the group's decision to request
        publication as a Note, and</li>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish documentation of significant
        changes to the technical report since any previous publication.</li>
    <p>Possible next steps:</p>
      <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, at the maturity level the specification
        had before publication as a Note</li>
    <p>The <a href="">W3C Patent
        Policy</a> [<a href="">PUB33</a>]
      does not specify any licensing requirements or commitments for Working
      Group Notes, only for W3C Recommendations.</p>
    <h3 id="rec-rescind">7.9 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</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="">W3C
        Patent Policy</a> [<a href="">PUB33</a>]
      and in particular <a href="">section
        5</a> (bullet 10) and <a href="">section
        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>W3C only rescinds entire specifications. To rescind some <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
      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> publish rationale for rescinding the
      <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known implementation.</li>
    <p>In addition a Working Group requesting to rescind</p>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the request to rescind has
        received <a href="#wide-review">wide review</a></li>
    <p>In addition the Director, if proposing to rescind</p>
      <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the request to rescind is
        based on public comment</li>
    <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
        Committee</a>. The announcement <em class="rfc2119">must</em>:</p>
      <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 announcing</span>
        the proposal to rescind.</li>
      <li>identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent
        Working Groups;</li>
      <li>solicit public review.</li>
    <p>If there was any <a href=""
        rel="glossary" title="Definition of Dissent"><span class="dfn-instance">dissent</span></a>
      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="">formally
        address</a> the comment at least 14 days before publication as a
      Rescinded Recommendation. In this case the <a href="">Advisory
        Committee</a> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="#ACAppeal">appeal</a>
      the decision.</p>
    <h3 id="good-practice">Further reading</h3>
    <p>Refer to <a href="">"How to
        Organize a Recommendation Track Transition"</a> in the <a href="">Member
        guide</a> for practical information about preparing for the reviews and
      announcements of the various steps, and <a href="">tips
        on getting to Recommendation faster</a> [<a href="">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>