--- a/tr.html Fri Feb 14 22:57:04 2014 +0100
+++ b/tr.html Mon Feb 17 02:03:36 2014 +0100
@@ -178,14 +178,14 @@
<li><a href="#working-draft">7.3 Working Draft</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#first-wd">7.3.1 First Public Working Draft</a></li>
- <li><a href="#revised-wd">7.3.2 Revised Public Working Drafts</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#revised-wd">7.3.2 Revising Public Working Drafts</a></li>
<li><a href="#tr-end"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">7.3.3
Stopping work on a specification</span></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#candidate-rec">7.4 Candidate Recommendation</a>
<ul>
- <li><a href="#revised-cr">7.4.1 Revised Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#revised-cr">7.4.1 Revising a Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li> <a href="#rec-pr">7.5 Proposed Recommendation</a></li>
@@ -226,10 +226,10 @@
become a standard.</li>
</ol>
<p>Some W3C Notes are developed through successive Working Drafts, with an
- expectation that they will become Notes, while others are simply published.
- There are few formal requirements to publish a document as a W3C Note, and
- they have no standing as a recommendation of W3C but are simply documents
- preserved for historical reference.</p>
+ expectation that they will become Notes, while others are simply
+ published. There are few formal requirements to publish a document as a
+ W3C Note, and they have no standing as a recommendation of W3C but are
+ simply documents preserved for historical reference.</p>
<p>Individual Working Groups and Interest Groups may adopt additional
processes for developing publications, so long as they do not conflict
with the requirements in this chapter.</p>
@@ -237,13 +237,13 @@
<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 revised Public Working
+ <li>Publication of the <a href="#first-wd">First Public Working Draft</a>,</li>
+ <li>Publication of zero or more revised <a href="#hb-wd">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
+ <li>Publication of a <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a>.</li>
+ <li>Publication of a <a href="#rec-pr">Proposed Recommendation</a>.</li>
+ <li>Publication as a <a href="#rec-publication">W3C Recommendation</a>.</li>
+ <li>Possibly, Publication as an <a href="#rec-edited">Edited
Recommendation</a></li>
</ol>
<p>
@@ -553,7 +553,7 @@
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>].</p>
- <h4 id="revised-wd">7.3.2 Revised Public Working Drafts</h4>
+ <h4 id="revised-wd">7.3.2 Revising 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 beyond the Working Group<em
@@ -562,7 +562,7 @@
Working Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish a revised Working
Draft, whose status section <em class="rfc2119">should</em> indicate
reasons for the lack of change. </p>
- <p>To publish a revised Working draft, a Working Group </p>
+ <p>To publish a revision of a Working draft, a Working Group </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>
@@ -579,7 +579,7 @@
</ul>
<p>Possible next steps for any Working Draft:</p>
<ul>
- <li><a href="#hb-wd">Revised Public Working Draft</a></li>
+ <li>Revised <a href="#hb-wd">Public Working Draft</a></li>
<li><a href="#last-call">Candidate recommendation</a>.</li>
<li><a href="#Note">Working Group Note</a></li>
</ul>
@@ -614,10 +614,10 @@
complex documents,</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the specification has received
<a href="#wide-review">wide review</a>, and</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 Proposed Recommendation without a
- requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation.</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> identify features in the document as "at
+ risk". These features <em class="rfc2119">may</em> be removed before
+ advancement to Proposed Recommendation without a requirement to publish
+ a new Candidate Recommendation.</li>
</ul>
<p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the publication of a
Candidate Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
@@ -632,7 +632,7 @@
<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>Revised <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>
@@ -640,11 +640,11 @@
<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 id="revised-cr">7.4.1 Revised Candidate Recommendation</h4>
+ <h4 id="revised-cr">7.4.1 Revising a 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 Working Group <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
- obtain the Director's approval to publish a revised Candidate
+ obtain the Director's approval to publish a revision of a 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
@@ -664,10 +664,10 @@
Candidate Recommendation, </li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the proposed changes have
received <a href="#wide-review">wide review</a>, and</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 Proposed Recommendation without a
- requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation.</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> identify features in the document as "at
+ risk". These features <em class="rfc2119">may</em> be removed before
+ advancement to Proposed Recommendation without a requirement to publish
+ a new Candidate Recommendation.</li>
</ul>
<h3 id="rec-pr">7.5 Proposed Recommendation</h3>
<p>In addition to meeting the <a href="#transition-reqs">general
@@ -706,15 +706,20 @@
<li><span><em class="rfc2119">may</em> approve a Proposed Recommendation
with minimal implementation experience where there is a compelling
reason to do so. In such a case, the Director <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
- explain the reasons for that decision. </span></li>
+ explain the reasons for that decision.</span></li>
</ul>
+ <p>Since a W3C Recommendation <span class="rfc2119">must not</span> include
+ any substantive changes from the Proposed Recommendation it is based on,
+ to make any substantive change to a Proposed Recommendation the Working
+ Group <span class="rfc2119">must</span> return the specification to
+ Candidate Recommendation or Working Draft.</p>
<ul>
</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
+ <li><a href="#rec-publication">Recommendation status</a> (The expected
next step)</li>
<li><a href="#Note">Working Group Note</a></li>
</ul>
@@ -726,6 +731,9 @@
<ul>
<li>A Recommendation <em class="rfc2119">must</em> identify where errata
are tracked, and</li>
+ <li>A Recommendation <span class="rfc2119">must not</span> include any
+ substantive changes from the Proposed Recommendation on which it is
+ based.</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>
@@ -742,8 +750,8 @@
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
<p>A W3C Recommendation normally retains its status indefinitely. However it</p>
<ul>
- <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> be <a href="#rec-modify">republished as
- an Edited Recommendation</a>, or</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> be republished as an <a href="#rec-modify">Edited
+ Recommendation</a>, or</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> be <a href="#rec-rescind">rescinded</a>.</li>
</ul>
<h3 id="rec-modify">7.7 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</h3>