Split reasons for publishing revised working draft, added 'should' requirement to explain if there has been no change in 6 months. ISSUE-46
authorcharles
Thu, 10 Oct 2013 01:21:09 +0200
changeset 39 95aaf11e21a0
parent 38 adb1783b98a0
child 40 1ff44ce92183
Split reasons for publishing revised working draft, added 'should' requirement to explain if there has been no change in 6 months. ISSUE-46
tr.html
--- a/tr.html	Thu Oct 10 01:11:16 2013 +0200
+++ b/tr.html	Thu Oct 10 01:21:09 2013 +0200
@@ -484,10 +484,16 @@
         Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].</p>
     <h5 id="revised-wd">7.4.1.b Revised Public Working Drafts</h5>
     <p class="new">A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish a
-      Working Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page every 6 months, or sooner
-      when there have been significant changes to the document that would
-      benefit from review from beyond the Working Group<em class="rfc2119"></em>.
+      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>
+    <p class="new">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 reasons for the lack of change.
+      <meta charset="utf-8">
     </p>
+    <p class="new"> </p>
     <p>To publish a revised Working draft, a Working Group <span class="from">(copied
         since this is not a new maturity level)</span> </p>
     <ul>