Split reasons for publishing revised working draft, added 'should' requirement to explain if there has been no change in 6 months. ISSUE-46
--- 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>