--- a/tr.html Wed Sep 18 17:26:32 2013 -0400
+++ b/tr.html Wed Sep 18 17:48:49 2013 -0400
@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
<!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="http://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 22 July 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>),
+ Draft 18 September 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 on 22 July 2013. This document is an editor's draft for the
Advisory Board but does not yet fully reflect consensus. </p>
<p>An earlier 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> with a more effective W3C
Specification life cycle following the meeting of the W3C Advisory
Board on 17-18 September 2013. This document is an editor's draft for
the Advisory Board but does not yet fully reflect consensus. </p>
<p>An earlier 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 <<a href="mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru">chaals@yandex-team.ru</a>
for discussion. The Advisory Board has agreed to make all editor's
drafts 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>.</p>
<p>I am grateful to the W3C Advisory Board, the W3C Process Community
Group, Art Barstow, Robin Berjon, Wayne Carr, Marcos Cáceres, Tantek
Çelik, Ian Hickson, Ian Jacobs, Ralph Swick, Anne van Kesteren, 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 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 for such changes</a>.</p>
<p>I am grateful to the W3C Advisory Board, the W3C Process Community
Group, Art Barstow, Robin Berjon, Wayne Carr, Marcos Cáceres, Ian
Hickson, Ian Jacobs, Ralph Swick, Anne van Kesteren, 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 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
tracked 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>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>The chapter is about half the size it was. </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
+ Lifecycle (chapter 7)</a>"</p>
Major changes:
<ul>
<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>
<p>Note that I have generally not renumbered sections that are deleted
or moved, which explains why some items are not sequentially numbered.</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">
<polygon points="-4,5 -4,-58 397,-58 397,5 -4,5" stroke="white" fill="white"></polygon>
<g class="node" id="node1">
<ellipse ry="18" rx="35.9954" cy="-18" cx="36" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="36" text-anchor="middle">FPWD</text>
</g>
<g class="node" id="node2">
<ellipse ry="18" rx="38.1938" cy="-18" cx="147" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="147"
text-anchor="middle">HBWD</text>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge1">
<path d="M71.788,-18C80.2068,-18 89.3509,-18 98.251,-18" 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="node3">
<ellipse ry="18" rx="37.8943" cy="-18" cx="260" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="260"
text-anchor="middle">LCCR</text>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge3">
<path d="M183.121,-11.6719C193.029,-11.2434 203.944,-11.1413 214.332,-11.3656"
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="M224.487,-24.3013C214.621,-24.7432 203.717,-24.8587 193.308,-24.6478"
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>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="363"
text-anchor="middle">REC</text>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge6">
<path d="M297.749,-18C306.33,-18 315.485,-18 324.114,-18" 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="#mozTocId357269">General requirements for Technical Reports</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId185794">7.1 Maturity Levels</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId310665">7.2 General Requirements for Advancement on
the Recommendation Track</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId303350">7.2.1 (from 7.6.2) Changes to a
Specification</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId828599">7.2.2 Wide Review</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId89649">7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId510412">7.4 Advancing a Technical Report to
Recommendation</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId403357">7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId918390">7.4.1.b "Heartbeat" Working Draft</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId200837">7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId840424">7.4.5 Publication of a W3C
Recommendation</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId978114">Publishing a Last Call Candidate
Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId128164">Publishing an Edited Recommendation
(See also Modifying a Recommendation below)</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId889945">For all W3C Recommendations</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId763911">7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest
Group Note</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId924165">7.6 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId436763">7.6.1 Errata Management</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId203654">7.7 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId957988">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
+ </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="node2">
<ellipse ry="18" rx="38.1938" cy="-18" cx="147" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="147"
text-anchor="middle">WD</text>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge1">
<path d="M71.788,-18C80.2068,-18 89.3509,-18 98.251,-18" 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="node3">
<ellipse ry="18" rx="37.8943" cy="-18" cx="260" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="260"
text-anchor="middle">LCCR</text>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge3">
<path d="M183.121,-11.6719C193.029,-11.2434 203.944,-11.1413 214.332,-11.3656"
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="M224.487,-24.3013C214.621,-24.7432 203.717,-24.8587 193.308,-24.6478"
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>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="363"
text-anchor="middle">REC</text>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge6">
<path d="M297.749,-18C306.33,-18 315.485,-18 324.114,-18" 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="#mozTocId951868">General requirements for Technical Reports</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId233783">7.1 Maturity Levels</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId44043">7.2 General Requirements for Advancement on
the Recommendation Track</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId52529">7.2.2 Wide Review</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId864535">7.2.3 Implementation Experience</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId157737">7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId302600">7.4 Advancing a Technical Report to
Recommendation</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId226623">7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId442082">7.4.1.b "Heartbeat" Working Draft</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId583091">7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId255357">7.4.5 Publication of a W3C
Recommendation</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId783340">Publishing a Last Call Candidate
Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId17935">Publishing an Edited Recommendation
(See also Modifying a Recommendation below)</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId706375">For all W3C Recommendations</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId995044">7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest
Group Note</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId968883">7.6 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId784400">7.6.1 Errata Management</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId12613">7.6.2 Classes of Changes to a
Recommendation</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId618407">7.7 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId577828">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> <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
@@ -24,20 +24,19 @@
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>
<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,
particularly in light of the listed dependencies, and how the Working
Group has solicited and responded to review. In particular, the Director
is likely to consider the record of requests to and responses from groups
identified as dependencies in the charter, as well as seeking evidence of
clear communication to the general public about appropriate times and
which content to review. </p>
<p>As an example, inviting review of new or significantly revised sections
published in Heartbeat 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>
<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>. Worthy ideas <em class="rfc2119">should</em> be
recorded even when not incorporated into a mature document.
<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 "Heartbeat" 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>
</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> refuse permission 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 group Chairs when a technical report has been refused
permission to advance in maturity level and returned to a Working Group
for further work.</p>
<h4>7.4.1.a <a name="first-wd" id="first-wd">First Public Working Draft</a>
</h4>
<p>To publish a First Public Working draft, in addition to the general
requirements for advancement a Working Group</p>
<ul>
<li> <em class="rfc2119">should</em> document the extent of consensus on
the content, and outstanding issues 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> This publication triggers a patent disclosure request, as per <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-disclosure-requests">section
+ Committee</a> and group Chairs when a technical report has been refused
permission to advance in maturity level and returned to a Working Group
for further work.</p>
<h4>7.4.1.a <a name="first-wd" id="first-wd">Working Draft</a> </h4>
<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 the extent of consensus on
the content, and outstanding issues 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 patent disclosure
request, as per <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-disclosure-requests">section
6.3</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>].
See also <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-exclusion-with">section
4.1
- of the W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>]
for information about the policy implications of the First Public Working
Draft. </p>
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="#hb-wd">"Heartbeat" 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>7.4.1.b <a name="hb-wd" id="hb-wd">"Heartbeat" Working Draft</a></h4>
<p class="new">A working group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish a
"Heartbeat" Public Working Draft every 6 months, or when there have been
significant changes to the document that would benefit from review from
beyond the Working Group<em class="rfc2119"></em>.<span class="from">(was
must in @@ch4?)</span> </p>
<p>A Heartbeat Working Draft is not an advancement in maturity level. To
publish a Heartbeat 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 the extent of consensus on
the content, and outstanding issues 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">"Heartbeat" 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 the
general requirements for advancement 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> This publication triggers a patent disclosure request, as per <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-disclosure-requests">section
+ of the W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>]
for information about the policy implications of the First Public Working
Draft. </p>
<p class="new">A working group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish a
Working Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page every 6 months, or sooner
when there have been significant changes to the document that would
benefit from review from beyond the Working Group<em class="rfc2119"></em>.<span
class="from">(was
+ must in @@ch4?)</span> </p>
<p>To publish a 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 the extent of consensus on
the content, and outstanding issues 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">"Heartbeat" 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> This publication triggers a patent disclosure request, as per <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-disclosure-requests">section
6.3</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>].
See also <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-exclusion-with">section
4.1
of the W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>]
for information about the policy implications of the Candidate
Recommendation. </p>
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
<ul>
<li>Return to <a href="#hb-wd">Heartbeat 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>7.4.5 <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> <span class="issue">This
- requirement is liable to change. It is tracked in <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/26">ISSUE-26</a>
and <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/27">ISSUE-27</a></span></li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the document has received <a
href="#wide-review">wide
+ 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 class="new"><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known
implementation.</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 <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>. <span class="new">The Director<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></p>
<h5 id="rec-edited">Publishing an Edited Recommendation (See also <a href="#rec-modify">Modifying
@@ -51,7 +50,9 @@
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>A document published as a Working Group Note does not imply any licensing
requirements, unless work is resumed and it is subsequently published as a
W3C Recommendation. 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 -- of equal status as the text in the published Recommendation
--
through one of the processes described below. An errata page <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span>
include both proposed and normative corrections. The
Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> clearly identify which
corrections are proposed and which are normative.</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 links or invalid markup.</dd>
<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 <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> affect
conformance,
but add no new features</dt>
<dd>These changes <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> affect conformance to
the
Recommendation. A change that affects conformance is one that:
<ol>
<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>
</ol>
</dd>
<dt>4. New features</dt>
</dl>
<p>The first two classes of change require no technical review of the
proposed
changes, although a Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> issue
a Call
for Review. 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>].</p>
<p>For the third class of change, W3C requires:</p>
<ol>
<li>Review by the community to ensure the technical soundness of proposed
corrections.</li>
<li>Timely publication of the edited Recommendation, with corrections
incorporated.</li>
</ol>
<p>For the third class of change, the Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span>
either:</p>
<ol>
<li>Request that the Director issue a <a href="#cfr-edited">Call for
Review of
an Edited Recommendation</a>, or</li>
<li>Issue a <a href="#cfr-corrections">Call for Review of Proposed
Corrections</a> that have not been incorporated into an edited draft
(e.g.,
those listed on an errata page). After this review, the Director <span
class="rfc2119">MAY</span>
announce that the proposed corrections are normative.</li>
</ol>
<p>While the second approach is designed so that a Working Group can
establish
normative corrections quickly, it does not obviate the need to incorporate
changes into an edited version of the Recommendation. In particular, when
corrections are numerous or complex, integrating them into a single
document is
important for interoperability; readers might otherwise interpret the
corrections differently.</p>
<p>For the fourth class of change (new 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>].</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 -- of equal status as the text in the published
Recommendation -- through one of the processes described below. An errata
page <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> include both proposed and normative
corrections. The Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> clearly
identify which corrections are proposed and which are normative.</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 links or invalid markup.</dd>
<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 <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> affect
conformance, but add no new features</dt>
<dd>These changes <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> affect conformance to
the Recommendation. A change that affects conformance is one that:
<ol>
<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>
</ol>
</dd>
<dt>4. New features</dt>
</dl>
<p>The first two classes of change require no technical review of the
proposed changes, although a Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span>
issue a Call for Review. 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>].</p>
<p>For the third class of change, W3C requires:</p>
<ol>
<li>Review by the community to ensure the technical soundness of proposed
corrections.</li>
<li>Timely publication of the edited Recommendation, with corrections
incorporated.</li>
</ol>
<p>For the third class of change, the Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span>
either:</p>
<ol>
<li>Request that the Director issue a <a href="#cfr-edited">Call for
Review of an Edited Recommendation</a>, or</li>
<li>Issue a <a href="#cfr-corrections">Call for Review of Proposed
Corrections</a> that have not been incorporated into an edited draft
(e.g., those listed on an errata page). After this review, the Director
<span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> announce that the proposed corrections
are normative.</li>
</ol>
<p>While the second approach is designed so that a Working Group can
establish normative corrections quickly, it does not obviate the need to
incorporate changes into an edited version of the Recommendation. In
particular, when corrections are numerous or complex, integrating them
into a single document is important for interoperability; readers might
otherwise interpret the corrections differently.</p>
<p>For the fourth class of change (new 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