--- a/tr.html Wed Sep 18 17:07:07 2013 -0400
+++ b/tr.html Wed Sep 18 17:23:07 2013 -0400
@@ -19,10 +19,9 @@
about translations of W3C technical reports</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-translations">PUB18</a>]
is available at the W3C Web site.<span class="from">(was in 7.8)</span></p>
<h3>7.1 <a name="maturity-levels" id="maturity-levels">Maturity Levels</a></h3>
<dl>
<dt><a name="RecsWD" id="RecsWD">Working Draft (WD)</a></dt>
<dd>A Working Draft is a document that W3C has published for review by the
community, including W3C Members, the public, and other technical
organizations. Some, but not all, Working Drafts are meant to advance to
Recommendation; see the <a href="#DocumentStatus">document status
section</a> of a Working Draft for the group's expectations. Any
Working Draft not, or no longer, intended to advance to Recommendation <em
class="rfc2119">should</em>
<span class="from">(was in 7.5)</span> be published as a Working Group
Note. Working Drafts do not necessarily represent a consensus of the
Working Group, and do not imply any endorsement by W3C or its members
beyond agreement to work on a general area of technology.</dd>
<dt><a name="RecsCR" id="RecsCR">Last Call Candidate Recommendation
(LC/CR)</a></dt>
<dd class="changed">A Last Call Candidate Recommendation is a document
that Satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements, and has
already received wide review. W3C publishes a Last Call 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
experience</a></li>
<li>begin formal review by the Advisory Committee, who <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
recommend that the document be published as a W3C Recommendation,
returned to the Working Group for further work, or abandoned. <span
class="from">(was
two steps)</span> </li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dd class="new"><strong>Note:</strong> Last Call Candidate Recommendation
is the state referred to in 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>]
as "Last Call Working Draft"</dd>
<dd class="new"><strong>Note:</strong> Last Call Candidate Recommendations
will normally be accepted as Recommendations. Announcement of a
different next step <em class="rfc2119">should</em> include the reasons
why the change in expectations comes at so late a stage.</dd>
<dt><a name="RecsW3C" id="RecsW3C">W3C Recommendation (REC)</a></dt>
<dd>A W3C Recommendation is a specification or set of normative guidelines
that, after extensive consensus-building, has received the endorsement
of W3C Members and the Director. W3C recommends the wide deployment of
its Recommendations as standards for the Web.</dd>
<dt><a name="WGNote" id="WGNote">Working Group Note, Interest Group Note
(NOTE) </a></dt>
<dd>A Working Group Note or Interest Group Note is published by a
chartered Working Group or Interest Group to <span class="new">provide
a stable reference for some document that is not intended to be a
normative specification, but is nevertheless useful. For example,
supporting documents such as Use case and Requirements documents, or
Design Principles, that explain what the Working Group was trying to
achieve with a specification, or non-normative 'Good Practices"
documents.</span> A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> also
publish a specification as a Note if they stop work without producing a
Recommendation. <span class="changed">A Working Group or Interest Group</span>
<em class="rfc2119">may</em> <span class="from">(was "W3C" in 7.1.4)</span>
publish a Note with or without its prior publication as a Working Draft.</dd>
<dt><a name="RescindedRec" id="RescindedRec">Rescinded Recommendation</a></dt>
<dd>A Rescinded Recommendation is an entire Recommendation that W3C no
longer endorses. See also clause 10 of the licensing requirements for
W3C Recommendations in <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-Requirements">section
- 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
+ 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 substantive to the technical report
since the previous step. A <dfn id="substantive-change">substantive
change</dfn> (whether deletion, inclusion, or other modification) is
one where someone could reasonably expect that making the change would
invalidate an individual's review or implementation experience. Other
changes (e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial repairs, and minor
error corrections) are minor changes. The community also appreciates
public documentation of minor changes.</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>
<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
+ 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>7.2.2 <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
@@ -31,17 +30,19 @@
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 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 adequate <a
href="#implementation-experience">implementation
experience</a>. </span><span class="from">(said preferably should
be two interoperable implementations...)</span> <span class="issue">This
+ 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
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
- a Recommendation</a> below)</h5>
<p>To publish an Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation, a Working
Group</p>
<ul class="new">
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> republish the document, identifying it
as the basis of a Request for Recommendation.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the document has received <a
href="#wide-review">wide
review</a></li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known implementation.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> address all errata.</li>
</ul>
<h5>For all W3C Recommendations</h5>
<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
+ a Recommendation</a> below)</h5>
<p>To publish an Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation, a Working
Group</p>
<ul class="new">
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> republish the document, identifying it
as the basis of a Request for Recommendation.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the document has received <a
href="#wide-review">wide
+ review</a></li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known implementation.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> address all errata.</li>
</ul>
<h5>For all W3C Recommendations</h5>
<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>.</p>
<p class="changed">The Advisory Committee review of the technical report <em
class="rfc2119">must</em>
continue at least 28 days after the announcement of provisional approval
to publish the Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation. <span class="from">(was
7.4.4)</span> </p>
<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>
in Advisory Committee reviews, the director <span class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em>
publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C <strong>and the
general public</strong></span> and <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a
href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
address</a> the comment <span class="new">at least 14 days before
publication as a W3C Recommendation</span>. In this case the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
@@ -50,9 +51,7 @@
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 Errata Management</h4>
<p>Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">must</em> 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>.
The Working Group <em class="rfc2119">must</em> identify which
corrections are normative. [Editor's note: What happens when the working
group closes? Are normative changes really normative? Doesn't, or
shouldn't it depend on the type of change?]</p>
<p>Some changes are allowed for a W3C Recommendation, but most changes will
only be allowed to be made by publishing an Edited Recommendation or a new
Recommendation.</p>
<dl>
<dt>No changes to text content</dt>
<dd>These changes include fixing broken links or invalid markup. W3C <em
class="rfc2119">may</em>
do this without announcement. <span class="from">(was not clear who
could do this)</span></dd>
<dt><a href="#editorial-change">Editorial changes</a> or <a class="changed"
href="#substantive-correction">Substantive
- corrections</a></dt>
<dd>A Working Group or W3C <em class="rfc2119 changed">must</em> request
a PER for this. <span class="from">(No review was required, and this
could be done in errata)</span></dd>
<dt><a href="#substantive-correction">Substantive corrections</a> that add
no new features</dt>
<dd>A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">must</em> create a Proposed
Edited Recommendation or a new Recommendation to make such changes. <span
class="from">(Was:
- W3C requires community review and timely publication, although it
appears that it could be done via errata)</span> </dd>
<dt><a href="#substantive-change">Substantive changes</a> that add New
features</dt>
<dd>A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">must</em> follow the full process
of advancing a technical report to Recommendation to make such changes.</dd>
</dl>
<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