--- a/tr.html Wed Feb 05 17:25:24 2014 +0400
+++ b/tr.html Fri Feb 14 22:02:31 2014 +0100
@@ -121,8 +121,8 @@
<li>The Director is required to address dissenting AC review comments
<strong>publicly</strong>, 2 weeks <em>before</em> publication of a
Recommendation.</li>
- <li>Errata cannot be made normative except by republishing a
- Recommendation or a Revised Recommendation</li>
+ <li>Errata cannot be made normative except by revising a
+ Recommendation</li>
<li>And it is in HTML5</li>
</ul>
<p>Editorially, I have tried to rationalize requirements and clarify who
@@ -212,11 +212,15 @@
<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>
+ suggests the Working Group has met their requirements satisfactorily for a
+ new standard, there is a Candidate Recommendation phase. This allows the
+ entire W3C membership to provide feedback on whether the specification
+ should become a W3C Recommendation, while the Working Group formally
+ collects implementation experience to demonstrate that the
+ specification works in practice. The next phase is a Proposed
+ Recommendation, to finalize the review of W3C Members. If W3C member
+ review agrees that a specification should be a Standard, W3C publishes it
+ as a Recommendation.</p>
<p>Groups may also publish documents as W3C Notes. The two common purposes
for Notes are </p>
<ol>
@@ -243,6 +247,7 @@
<li><a href="#hb-wd">Publication of zero or more revised Public Working
Drafts</a>.</li>
<li><a href="#last-call">Publication of a Candidate Recommendation</a>.</li>
+ <li><a href="#rec-pr">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
Recommendation</a></li>
@@ -317,9 +322,9 @@
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
+ <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
<ul>
<li>signal to the wider community that a final review should be done</li>
<li>gather <a href="#implementation-experience">implementation
@@ -343,7 +348,7 @@
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>
+ Working Draft or 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
@@ -369,8 +374,8 @@
</dl>
<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>
+ whatsoever, and do not necessarily 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
definitions</h3>
<h4 id="general-requirements">7.2.1 General requirements for Technical
@@ -499,11 +504,11 @@
this demonstrated; (for example, is there a test suite)?</li>
<li>are there independent interoperable implementations of the current
specification?</li>
- <li>are there implementations created by other than the authors of the
- specification?</li>
+ <li>are there implementations created by people 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>
+ specification's ecosystem (authoring, consuming, publishing…)?</li>
</ul>
<p>Planning and accomplishing a demonstration of (interoperable)
implementations can be very time consuming. Groups are often able to work
@@ -562,8 +567,8 @@
<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>
+ to the document that would benefit from review 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
@@ -639,8 +644,8 @@
<ul>
<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="#rec-pr">Proposed Recommendation status</a> (The expected
+ 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
@@ -649,10 +654,10 @@
<h4 id="revised-cr">7.4.1 Revised Candidate Recommendation</h4>
<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 Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
- approve the publication of a revised Candidate Recommendation. This is
- because substantive changes will generally require a new Exclusion
- Opportunity per <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-Exclusion">section
+ explicitly identified as "at risk", the Director <em class="rfc2119">must
+ not</em> approve the publication of a revised Candidate
+ Recommendation. This is because substantive changes will generally require
+ a new Exclusion Opportunity per <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-Exclusion">section
4</a> of the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C
Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].
Note that approval is <em>expected</em> to be fairly simple compared to
@@ -688,8 +693,6 @@
</ul>
<p>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>
<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
@@ -701,7 +704,6 @@
<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>
@@ -724,14 +726,22 @@
compelling reason to do so. In such a case, the Director <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
explain the reasons for that decision. </span></li>
</ul>
+ <p>Possible Next Steps</p>
+ <ul>
+ <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-pr">Proposed Recommendation status</a> (The expected
+ next step)</li>
+ <li><a href="#Note">Working Group Note</a></li>
+ </ul>
+ <ul>
+ </ul>
<h3 id="rec-publication">7.6 W3C Recommendation</h3>
<p>In addition to meeting the <a href="#transition-reqs">general
requirements for advancement</a>,</p>
<ul>
- <li>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the provisional
- approval of a Request for publication of a W3C Recommendation to the <a
- href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
- Committee</a>,</li>
+ <li>A Recommendation <em class="rfc2119">must</em> identify where errata
+ are tracked, and</li>
<li>If there was any <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#def-Dissent"
rel="glossary" title="Definition of Dissent"><span class="dfn-instance">dissent</span></a>
in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
@@ -742,7 +752,8 @@
Committee</a> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a>
the decision,</li>
<li>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the publication
- of a W3C Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public.</li>
+ of a W3C Recommendation to <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
+ Committee</a>, other W3C groups and to the public.</li>
</ul>
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
<p>A W3C Recommendation normally retains its status indefinitely. However it</p>
@@ -761,19 +772,15 @@
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>
+ content validity).</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 part of the Recommendation by the process described below.</p>
+ becomes part of the Recommendation by the process for Revising a
+ Recommendation described in the next section.</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