Editorial changes as per http://www.w3.org/mid/op.xchbczeiy3oazb@chaals.local (review by Steve Zilles)
--- a/tr.html Mon Mar 10 00:15:20 2014 +0100
+++ b/tr.html Mon Mar 10 00:56:11 2014 +0100
@@ -631,7 +631,9 @@
next step)</li>
<li><a href="#Note">Working Group Note</a></li>
</ul>
- <p> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
+ <p>If there was any <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#def-Dissent"
+ rel="glossary" title="Definition of Dissent"><span class="dfn-instance">dissent</span></a> to
+ the Working Group decision to request advancement <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 id="revised-cr">7.4.1 Revising a Candidate Recommendation</h4>
@@ -687,20 +689,21 @@
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 acting in<br>
- their formal AC representative role have been <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
+ representatives acting in their formal AC representative role have been
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
addressed</a>,</li>
<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">may</em> remove features identified in the
- Candidate Recommendation document as "at risk" without repeating the
- transition to Candidate Recommendation.</li>
+ other than Advisory Committee representatives acting in their formal AC
+ representative role,</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> have removed features identified in the
+ Candidate Recommendation document as "at risk" without republishing the
+ specification as a Candidate Recommendation.</li>
</ul>
<p>The Director:</p>
<ul>
- <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the Request for publication of
- a Proposed Recommendation to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the publication of a Proposed
+ Recommendation to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
Committee</a>, and</li>
<li><span><em class="rfc2119">may</em> approve a Proposed Recommendation
with minimal implementation experience where there is a compelling
@@ -797,10 +800,10 @@
Recommendations</a>, a Working Group</p>
<ul>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> republish the document, identifying it
- as the basis of a Request for Recommendation,</li>
+ as a Proposed (edited) 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>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> address all recorded errata.</li>
</ul>
<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
@@ -812,7 +815,7 @@
requirements, non-normative guides to good practices, 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>
+ <p>In order to publish a Note, a Working Group or Interest Group: </p>
<ul>
<li> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> publish a Note with or without its
prior publication as a Working Draft.</li>