--- a/tr.html Tue Sep 17 12:34:01 2013 -0400
+++ b/tr.html Wed Sep 18 17:03:33 2013 -0400
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
5</a> of the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C
Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].</dd>
</dl>
<p class="new">Working Groups and Interest Groups <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
publish "Editor's drafts". Editor's drafts have no official standing
whatsoever, and do not imply consensus of a Working Group or Interest
Group, nor are their contents endorsed in any way by W3C or its members,
except to the extent that such contents happen to be consistent with some
other document which carries a higher level of endorsement.</p>
<h3>7.2 <a name="transition-reqs" id="transition-reqs">General Requirements
for Advancement on the Recommendation Track</a></h3>
<p>For <em>all</em> requests to advance a specification to a new maturity
level other than Note the Working Group:</p>
<ul>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.2)</span>
record the group's decision to request advancement.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must </em><span class="from">(was repeated in
maturity levels)</span> obtain Director approval.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119 ">must</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.2)</span>
provide public documentation of all <a href="#substantive-change">substantive
changes</a> and <a href="#substantive-correction">substantive
corrections</a> to the technical report since the previous step.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
address</a> <span class="from">(was in 7.2)</span> all issues raised
about the document since the previous maturity level.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.2)</span>
provide <span class="new">public</span> documentation of any <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection">Formal
- Objections</a>.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119 changed">should</em> <span class="from">(was must
for CR+ in 7.2)</span> report which, if any, of the Working Group's
requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119 changed">should</em> <span class="from">(was must
for CR+ in 7.2)</span> report any changes in dependencies with other
groups.</li>
</ul>
<h4>7.2.1 <span class="from">from 7.6.2</span><a name="correction-classes"
id="correction-classes">
Changes to a Specification</a></h4>
<h4><a name="correction-classes" id="correction-classes"></a></h4>
<p><span class="issue">These definitions and their use should revert to the
current version. But the editor has outstanding comments to make (and
comments to address) on <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/15">ISSUE-15</a></span></p>
<p>A change that affects conformance is one that: </p>
<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>
<p><dfn id="substantive-change">Substantive changes</dfn> are changes which
make a conforming implementation (whether a processor, creatio or
management too or other agent, or data) non-conforming, or make a
non-conforming implementation conforming.</p>
<p><dfn id="substantive-correction">Substantive corrections</dfn> are
changes which clarify a situation where it is unclear whether an
implementation is conforming or non-conforming, such that it becomes clear
that the implementation is either conforming or non-conforming.</p>
<p><dfn id="editorial-change">Editorial Changes</dfn> are changes to the
content which do not alter the conformance status of any implementation.</p>
<h4>7.2.2 <a id="wide-review">Wide Review</a></h4>
<p>The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the
process. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of stakeholders of
the Web community, including the general public, have had adequate notice
of the progress of the Working Group and thereby an opportunity to comment
on the specification. Before approving transitions, the Director will
consider who has actually reviewed the document and provided comments,
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>
<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
+ 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>
</ul>
<h4>7.2.1 <span class="from">from 7.6.2</span><a name="correction-classes"
id="correction-classes">
Changes to a Specification</a></h4>
<h4><a name="correction-classes" id="correction-classes"></a></h4>
<p><span class="issue">These definitions and their use should revert to the
current version. But the editor has outstanding comments to make (and
comments to address) on <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/15">ISSUE-15</a></span></p>
<p>A change that affects conformance is one that: </p>
<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>
<p><dfn id="substantive-change">Substantive changes</dfn> are changes which
make a conforming implementation (whether a processor, creatio or
management too or other agent, or data) non-conforming, or make a
non-conforming implementation conforming.</p>
<p><dfn id="substantive-correction">Substantive corrections</dfn> are
changes which clarify a situation where it is unclear whether an
implementation is conforming or non-conforming, such that it becomes clear
that the implementation is either conforming or non-conforming.</p>
<p><dfn id="editorial-change">Editorial Changes</dfn> are changes to the
content which do not alter the conformance status of any implementation.</p>
<h4>7.2.2 <a id="wide-review">Wide Review</a></h4>
<p>The requirements for wide review are not precisely defined by the
process. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of stakeholders of
the Web community, including the general public, have had adequate notice
of the progress of the Working Group and thereby an opportunity to comment
on the specification. Before approving transitions, the Director will
consider who has actually reviewed the document and provided comments,
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 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 the 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
@@ -31,12 +31,12 @@
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 the testing and
implementation requirements (including test suites if required) to be
met for requesting transition to Recommendation.</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 class="new"><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known
implementation.</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
+ 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 class="new"><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known
implementation.</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> or <a href="#substantive-correction">substantive
corrections</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 that
independent implementations of the specification are extremely likely
to be highly interoperable. </span><span class="from">(said
preferably should be two interoperable implementations...)</span> <span
class="issue">This
+ 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
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