--- a/tr.html Tue Jul 09 16:15:21 2013 +0400
+++ b/tr.html Sat Jul 20 03:15:23 2013 +0200
@@ -1,24 +1,22 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="content-type">
<title>A Rec-track Process Draft Proposal</title>
<link href="http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/base.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
<style type="text/css">
/*<![CDATA[*/
.new {color:red} .changed {color:gold}
.from {background-color: gold;color: black }
.about { margin-left: 3em; margin-right: 3em; font-size: .83em}
table { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto }
.diagram { text-align: center; margin: 2.5em 0 }
.issue { line-height: 125% ; border: dashed red 2px; background-color: yellow }
.issue::before {content: "Issue: "}
.issue::after {content: "@@"}
.rfc2119 {font-variant:small-caps}
/*]]>*/</style>
<link href="prism.css" rel="stylesheet">
<link href="https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-ED" rel="stylesheet">
<!--[if lt IE 9]><script src='undefined://www.w3.org/2008/site/js/html5shiv.js'></script><![endif]-->
</head>
<body>
<p> </p>
<div class="head">
<p> <a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img alt="W3C" src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home"
height="48"
width="72"></a>
</p>
<h1 class="title" id="title">Recommendation Track Process, draft proposal</h1>
<h2 id="w3c-working-draft-20-september-2012"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium"></abbr>Editors'
+<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="content-type">
<title>A Rec-track Process Draft Proposal</title>
<link href="http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/base.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
<style type="text/css">
.from {display:none }
.about { margin-left: 3em; margin-right: 3em; font-size: .83em}
table { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto }
.diagram { text-align: center; margin: 2.5em 0 }
.issue { line-height: 125% ; border: dashed red 2px; background-color: yellow }
.issue::before {content: "Issue: "}
.issue::after {content: "@@"}
.rfc2119 {font-variant:small-caps}
</style> <link href="prism.css" rel="stylesheet">
<link href="https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-ED" rel="stylesheet">
<!--[if lt IE 9]><script src='undefined://www.w3.org/2008/site/js/html5shiv.js'></script><![endif]-->
</head>
<body>
<p> </p>
<div class="head">
<p> <a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img alt="W3C" src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home"
height="48"
width="72"></a>
</p>
<h1 class="title" id="title">Recommendation Track Process, draft proposal</h1>
<h2 id="w3c-working-draft-20-september-2012"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium"></abbr>Editors'
Draft 9 July 2013</h2>
<dl>
<!--dt>Latest published version:</dt>
<dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML-longdesc">http://www.w3.org/TR/HTML-longdesc</a></dd-->
<dt>Latest editor's draft:</dt>
<dd> <a href="https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html">https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/tr.html</a></dd>
<dt>Editor:</dt>
<dd><a href="mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru">Charles (McCathie) Nevile</a>,
<a href="http://www.yandex.ru">Яндекс</a>—<a href="http://yandex.com">Yandex</a></dd>
</dl>
<p class="copyright"> <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright">Copyright</a>
© 2013 <a href="http://www.w3.org/"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr></a><sup>®</sup>
(<a href="http://www.csail.mit.edu/"><abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr></a>,
<a href="http://www.ercim.eu/"><abbr title="European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics">ERCIM</abbr></a>,
<a href="http://www.keio.ac.jp/">Keio</a>, <a href="http://ev.buaa.edu.cn/">Beihang</a>),
All Rights Reserved. <abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</abbr>
<a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Legal_Disclaimer">liability</a>,
<a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#W3C_Trademarks">trademark</a>,
<a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents">document
use</a> and <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software">software
licensing</a> rules apply. </p>
<hr> </div>
<div class="noprint">
<div class="navbar">
<p>This is a revised draft proposal to replace the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">current
- chapter 7 of the W3C process document</a> with a more effective W3C
Specification life cycle following the meeting of the W3C Advisory
Board on 8 July 2013. This document is an editor's draft and does not
reflect consensus. </p>
<p>An earlier version was first proposed to the W3C Advisory Board on 13
May 2013 as a possible replacement for the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">current
+ chapter 7 of the W3C process document</a> with a more effective W3C
Specification life cycle following the meeting of the W3C Advisory
Board on 8 July 2013. This document is an editor's draft for the
Advisory Board but does not yet fully reflect consensus. </p>
<p>An earlier version was first proposed to the W3C Advisory Board on 13
May 2013 as a possible replacement for the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">current
chapter 7 of the W3C process document</a>, and a <a href="http://yadi.sk/d/Zikwkr385JG8f">subsequent
version</a> was <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2013May/0023.html">proposed</a>
to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">W3C Process
Community Group</a> on 29 May 2013 by Charles Nevile <<a href="mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru">chaals@yandex-team.ru</a>
for discussion. The Advisory Board has agreed to make all editor's
drafts public, to enable broad input. However, following the existing
process, the Advisory Board retains formal responsibility for
decisions on what it proposes to the Advisory Committee, and the
adoption of any change to the process will follow the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess">existing
process for such changes</a>.</p>
<p>I am grateful to the W3C Advisory Board, the W3C Process Community
Group, Art Barstow, Robin Berjon, Wayne Carr, Marcos Cáceres, Tantek
Çelik, Ian Hickson, Ian Jacobs, Ralph Swick, Anne van Kesteren, and
many people I have forgotten to acknowledge for suggestions, comments
and discussions the helped me sort out my thinking, and to Ora Lassila
for the image that illustrates the normal process of a W3C
Recommendation-track document. </p>
<p>Please send comments on this document to, or participate in, the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/">W3C
Process Community Group</a>. Issues related to this proposal are
tracked in that group's issue tracker using the product "<a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/products/1">Document
- Lifecycle (chapter 7)</a>"</p>
<p>Some section numbering has been retained from the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">current
- chapter 7</a> to help track changes. Sections of the document has
been marked for changes from the current chapter 7 using the following
classes:</p>
<dl>
<dt class="new">new </dt>
<dd class="new">requirements or content that was not in the current
version.</dd>
<dt class="changed">changed</dt>
<dd class="changed">requirements or text that have changed from the
equivalent requirement.</dd>
<dt class="from">from</dt>
<dd class="from">Notes on where the requirement or text is in the
current version</dd>
</dl>
<p><strong>Note</strong>: deletions have not been noted. Unmarked
requirements are in the same section as in the original, and there may
be omissions or errors in identifying changes.</p>
<p>Major changes:</p>
<ul>
<li>Last Call and Candidate Recommendation have been collapsed
together. Some of the requirements are therefore enforced earlier in
the process.</li>
<li>Proposed Recommendation is no longer a separate step. Advisory
Committee review now begins at the same time as Last Call Candidate
recommendation, and ends 4 weeks after the Working group has
provisional approval for a Request to publish as a W3C
Recommendation.</li>
<li>The director is required to address AC review comments <strong>publicly</strong>,
2 weeks <em>before</em> publication of a Recommendation.</li>
<li>The chapter is about half the size it was. </li>
<li>And it is in HTML5</li>
</ul>
<p>Editorially, I have tried to rationalise requirements, and clarify
who is responsible for meeting them. I have also actively removed
advice and general statements to keep this version short.</p>
</div>
</div>
<h2>7 <a name="Reports" id="Reports">W3C Technical Report Development
Process</a></h2>
<p>The W3C technical report development process is the set of steps and
requirements followed by W3C <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#GroupsWG">Working
+ Lifecycle (chapter 7)</a>"</p>
Major changes:
<ul>
<li>Last Call and Candidate Recommendation have been collapsed
together. Some of the requirements are therefore enforced earlier in
the process.</li>
<li>Proposed Recommendation is no longer a separate step. Advisory
Committee review now begins at the same time as Last Call Candidate
recommendation, and ends 4 weeks after the Working group has
provisional approval for a Request to publish as a W3C
Recommendation.</li>
<li>The director is required to address AC review comments <strong>publicly</strong>,
2 weeks <em>before</em> publication of a Recommendation.</li>
<li>The chapter is about half the size it was. </li>
<li>And it is in HTML5</li>
</ul>
<p>Editorially, I have tried to rationalize requirements, and clarify
who is responsible for meeting them. I have also actively removed
advice and general statements to keep this version short.</p>
</div>
</div>
<h2>7 <a name="Reports" id="Reports">W3C Technical Report Development
Process</a></h2>
<p>The W3C technical report development process is the set of steps and
requirements followed by W3C <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups#GroupsWG">Working
Groups</a> to standardize Web technology. The W3C technical report
development process is designed to maximize <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#def-consensus"
rel="glossary"
title="Definition of Consensus"><span
class="dfn-instance">consensus</span></a>
about the content of a technical report, to ensure high technical and
editorial quality, to promote consistency among specifications, and to
earn endorsement by W3C and the broader community. See also the licensing
goals for W3C Recommendations in <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-Licensing">section
2</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>
<p>
<svg xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
viewBox="0.00 0.00 400.00 62.00"
height="5em"
width="36em">
<g transform="scale(1 1) rotate(0) translate(4 58)" class="graph" id="graph0">
<polygon points="-4,5 -4,-58 397,-58 397,5 -4,5" stroke="white" fill="white"></polygon>
<g class="node" id="node1">
<ellipse ry="18" rx="35.9954" cy="-18" cx="36" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="36" text-anchor="middle">FPWD</text>
</g>
<g class="node" id="node2">
<ellipse ry="18" rx="38.1938" cy="-18" cx="147" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="147"
text-anchor="middle">HBWD</text>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge1">
<path d="M71.788,-18C80.2068,-18 89.3509,-18 98.251,-18" stroke="black"
fill="none"></path>
<polygon points="98.5289,-21.5001 108.529,-18 98.5289,-14.5001 98.5289,-21.5001"
stroke="black"
fill="black"></polygon>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge2">
<path d="M128.006,-33.916C123.052,-44.1504 129.383,-54 147,-54 158.561,-54 165.262,-49.7581 167.102,-43.9494"
stroke="black"
fill="none"></path>
<polygon points="170.571,-43.471 165.994,-33.916 163.613,-44.24 170.571,-43.471"
stroke="black"
fill="black"></polygon>
</g>
<g class="node" id="node3">
<ellipse ry="18" rx="37.8943" cy="-18" cx="260" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="260"
text-anchor="middle">LCCR</text>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge3">
<path d="M183.121,-11.6719C193.029,-11.2434 203.944,-11.1413 214.332,-11.3656"
stroke="black"
fill="none"></path>
<polygon points="214.378,-14.8689 224.487,-11.6987 214.607,-7.87265 214.378,-14.8689"
stroke="black"
fill="black"></polygon>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge4">
<path d="M242.388,-33.916C237.793,-44.1504 243.664,-54 260,-54 270.72,-54 276.934,-49.7581 278.64,-43.9494"
stroke="black"
fill="none"></path>
<polygon points="282.114,-43.5071 277.612,-33.916 275.15,-44.2208 282.114,-43.5071"
stroke="black"
fill="black"></polygon>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge5">
<path d="M224.487,-24.3013C214.621,-24.7432 203.717,-24.8587 193.308,-24.6478"
stroke="black"
fill="none"></path>
<polygon points="193.226,-21.1436 183.121,-24.3281 193.006,-28.1402 193.226,-21.1436"
stroke="black"
fill="black"></polygon>
</g>
<g class="node" id="node4">
<ellipse ry="18" rx="28.6953" cy="-18" cx="363" stroke="black" fill="none"></ellipse>
<text font-size="14.00" font-family="Times,serif" y="-14.3" x="363"
text-anchor="middle">REC</text>
</g>
<g class="edge" id="edge6">
<path d="M297.749,-18C306.33,-18 315.485,-18 324.114,-18" stroke="black"
fill="none"></path>
<polygon points="324.306,-21.5001 334.306,-18 324.306,-14.5001 324.306,-21.5001"
stroke="black"
fill="black"></polygon>
</g> </g> </svg> <br>
</p>
<h3>Table of Contents</h3>
<ul id="mozToc">
<!--mozToc h3 1 h4 2 h5 3 h6 4-->
<li><a href="#mozTocId357269">General requirements for Technical Reports</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId185794">7.1 Maturity Levels</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId310665">7.2 General Requirements for Advancement on
the Recommendation Track</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId303350">7.2.1 (from 7.6.2) Changes to a
Specification</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId828599">7.2.2 Wide Review</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId89649">7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId510412">7.4 Advancing a Technical Report to
Recommendation</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId403357">7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId918390">7.4.1.b "Heartbeat" Working Draft</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId200837">7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId840424">7.4.5 Publication of a W3C
Recommendation</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId978114">Publishing a Last Call Candidate
Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId128164">Publishing an Edited Recommendation
(See also Modifying a Recommendation below)</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId889945">For all W3C Recommendations</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId763911">7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest
Group Note</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId924165">7.6 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#mozTocId436763">7.6.1 Errata Management</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId203654">7.7 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
<li><a href="#mozTocId957988">Good practices</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>General requirements for Technical Reports</h3>
<p>Every document published as part of the technical report development
process <em class="rfc2119 old">must</em> be a public document. The <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/">index
of W3C technical reports</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-doc-list">PUB11</a>]
is available at the W3C Web site. W3C will make every effort to make
archival documents indefinitely available at their original address in
their original form.</p>
<p>Every document published as part of the technical report development
process <em class="rfc2119 old">must</em> <span class="from">(was in
7.8)</span> clearly indicate its <a href="#maturity-levels">maturity
level</a>, and <em id="DocumentStatus" class="rfc2119">must</em> <span
class="from">(was
in 7.8.1)</span> include a section about the status of the document. The
status section</p>
<ul>
<li><em class="rfc2119 changed">must</em> <span class="from">(was should
in 7.8.1)</span> state who developed the specification, </li>
<li><em class="rfc2119 changed">must</em> <span class="from">(was should
in 7.8.1)</span> state how to send comments or file bugs, and where
these are recorded, </li>
<li> <em class="rfc2119">should</em> explain how the technology relates
to existing international standards and related work inside or outside
W3C,</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.8.1)</span>
include expectations about next steps, and</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.8.1)</span>
explain or link to an explanation of significant changes from the
previous version.</li>
</ul>
<p>Every technical report published as part of the technical report
development process is edited by one or more editors appointed by a Group
Chair. It is the responsibility of these editors to ensure that the
decisions of the group are correctly reflected in subsequent drafts of the
technical report. An editor <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <span class="from">(was
- in 7.8)</span> be a participant, as a Member representative, Team
representative, or Invited Expert in the group responsible for the
document(s) they are editing. Note that an editor is <em class="rfc2119">NOT
- REQUIRED</em> <span class="from">(was in 7.8)</span> to be a Team
representative.</p>
<p>The Team is <em class="rfc2119">NOT REQUIRED</em> <span class="from">(was
+ in 7.8)</span> be a participant, as a Member representative, Team
representative, or Invited Expert in the group responsible for the
document(s) they are editing.</p>
<p>The Team is <em class="rfc2119">NOT REQUIRED</em> <span class="from">(was
in 7.8)</span> to publish a technical report that does not conform to
the Team's <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication Rules</a>
(e.g., for <a name="DocumentName" id="DocumentName">naming</a>, style,
and <a name="document-copyright" id="document-copyright">copyright
requirements</a>). These rules are subject to change by the Team from
time to time. The Team <em class="rfc2119">must</em> inform group Chairs
and the Advisory Board of any changes.</p>
<p>The primary language for W3C technical reports is English. W3C encourages
the translation of its technical reports. <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/">Information
- 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>formalise implementation experience</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
+ 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>formalize implementation experience</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
@@ -26,15 +24,14 @@
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> provide public documentation of significant
editorial changes to the technical report since the previous step.</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>
<li><em class="rfc2119 changed">should</em> <span class="from">(was must
for CR+ in 7.2)</span> show evidence of <a href="#wide-review">wide
review</a>. </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, as resolved in <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. 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. 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
many detailed reviews is not necessarily the same as wide review, since it
may only represent comment from a small segment of the relevant
stakeholder community.</p>
<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 or <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
+ 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
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 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
advancement. Consensus is not required, as this is a procedural step.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> 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> 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.<br>
</li>
<li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document the testing and
implementation requirements (including test suites if required) to be
met for requesting transition to Recommendation.</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
+ 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.<br>
</li>
<li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document the testing and
implementation requirements (including test suites if required) to be
met for requesting transition to Recommendation.</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