Cleaned up editorial errors noted by Jeff Jaffe
authorcharles
Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:15:23 +0200
changeset 5 a7c730226455
parent 1 d97b11a76ac4
child 6 60c402600aff
Cleaned up editorial errors noted by Jeff Jaffe
Removed the styling from earlier redline versions (but didn't remove the classes from source. Notes about where things were in the orginal, class=from are now {display:none})
tr.html
--- 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:[email protected]">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&nbsp; <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 &lt;<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</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>.&nbsp; </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