--- a/tr.html Mon Oct 21 22:45:14 2013 +0100
+++ b/tr.html Tue Oct 22 03:01:28 2013 +0100
@@ -23,12 +23,13 @@
<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>
+ <h1 class="title" id="title">Recommendation Track Process, "Last Call"
+ draft proposal</h1>
<h2 id="w3c-working-draft-20-september-2012"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium"></abbr>Editors'
- Draft 18 October 2013</h2>
+ Draft 21 October 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>Current active version:</dt>
+ <dd><a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html</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>
@@ -52,15 +53,14 @@
<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 14 October 2013. This document is an editor's draft for the
- Advisory Board but does not yet fully reflect consensus. The Advisory
- Board proposed, at its 14 October meeting, recommending the content of
- this draft (although the last version they saw was the 9 October
- draft) as a "Last Call" draft proposed for adoption by the Advisory
- Committee as a replacement for the existing Chapter 7. Review will
- take place over several weeks, including the week of W3C's TPAC
- meeting (10-15 November), before a formal decision on adoption is
- made.</p>
+ Board's Chapter 7 Task Force on 21 October 2013. This document is an
+ editor's draft of a "Last Call" version. The Task Force resolved at
+ its 21 October meeting to recommend the agreed draft (although the
+ last version they saw was the 9 October draft) as a "Last Call" draft
+ proposed for adoption by the Advisory Committee as a replacement for
+ the existing Chapter 7. Review will take place over several weeks,
+ including the week of W3C's TPAC meeting (10-15 November), before a
+ formal decision on adoption is made.</p>
<p>An initial 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
@@ -72,15 +72,15 @@
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> subject to the resolution of <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39">ISSUE-39</a>.</p>
+ process for such changes</a>, subject to the resolution of <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/39">ISSUE-39</a>.</p>
<p>I am grateful to the W3C Advisory Board, the W3C Process Community
Group, Art Barstow, Robin Berjon, Wayne Carr, Marcos Cáceres, Ivan
- Herman, Ian Hickson, Ian Jacobs, Chris Lilley, Ralph Swick, Anne van
- Kesteren, Steve Zilles, and many people I have forgotten to
- acknowledge for suggestions, comments and discussions that helped me
- sort out my thinking, and to Ora Lassila for the original version of
- the image that illustrates the normal process of a W3C
- Recommendation-track document. </p>
+ Herman, Ian Hickson, Ian Jacobs, Jeff Jaffe, Chris Lilley, Ralph
+ Swick, Anne van Kesteren, Steve Zilles, and many people I have
+ forgotten to acknowledge for suggestions, comments and discussions
+ that helped me sort out my thinking, and to Ora Lassila for the
+ original version of 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 recorded in that
@@ -177,57 +177,56 @@
<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> </p>
<h3>Table of Contents</h3>
- <ul id="mozToc">
+ <ul id="Toc">
<!--mozToc h3 1 h4 2 h5 3 h6 4-->
- <li><a href="#mozTocId663575">Table of Contents</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId640923">General requirements for Technical Reports</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId773099">7.1 Maturity Levels</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId48944">7.2 General Requirements for Advancement on
+ <li><a href="#general-requirements">General requirements for Technical
+ Reports</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#maturity-levels">7.1 Maturity Levels</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#transition-reqs">7.2 General Requirements for Advancement on
the Recommendation Track</a>
<ul>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId61574">7.2.1 Substantive Change</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId776695">7.2.2 Wide Review</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId111988">7.2.3 Implementation Experience</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#substantive-change">7.2.1 Substantive Change</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#wide-review">7.2.2 Wide Review</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#implementation-experience">7.2.3 Implementation
+ Experience</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId838441">7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId983157">7.4 Advancing a Technical Report to
+ <li><a href="#doc-reviews">7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#rec-advance">7.4 Advancing a Technical Report to
Recommendation</a>
<ul>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId647636">7.4.1 Working Draft</a>
+ <li><a href="#wd">7.4.1 Working Draft</a>
<ul>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId165613">7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId671592">7.4.1.b Revised Public Working
- Drafts</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#first-wd">7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#revised-wd">7.4.1.b Revised Public Working Drafts</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId275563">7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId809317">7.4.3 Publication of a W3C
+ <li><a href="#last-call">7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#rec-publication">7.4.3 Publication of a W3C
Recommendation</a>
<ul>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId629587">Publishing a Last Call Candidate
- Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId40322">Publishing an Edited Recommendation
- (See also Modifying a Recommendation below)</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId681338">For all W3C Recommendations, in
- addition to meeting the general requirements for advancement,</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#lcrec-publication">7.4.3.a Publishing a Last Call
+ Candidate Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#rec-edited">7.4.3.b Publishing an Edited
+ Recommendation</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#for-all-recs">7.4.3.c For all W3C Recommendations</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId360048">7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest
- Group Note</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId38383">7.6 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</a>
+ <li><a href="#tr-end">7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group
+ Note</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#rec-modify">7.6 Modifying a W3C Recommendation</a>
<ul>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId72619">7.6.1 Errata Management</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId171734">7.6.2 Classes of Changes to a
+ <li><a href="#errata">7.6.1 Errata Management</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#correction-classes">7.6.2 Classes of Changes to a
Recommendation</a></li>
</ul>
</li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId737554">7.7 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
- <li><a href="#mozTocId185651">Good practices</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#rec-rescind">7.7 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#good-practice">Good practices</a></li>
</ul>
- <h3>General requirements for Technical Reports</h3>
+ <h3 id="general-requirements">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>]
@@ -237,47 +236,41 @@
<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>
+ level</a>, and <em id="DocumentStatus" class="rfc2119">must</em>
+ include a section about the status of the document. The status section</p>
<ul>
- <li><em class="rfc2119 changed">must</em> be unique each time a
- specification is published<br>
- <em class="rfc2119 changed"></em></li>
- <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">must</em> be unique each time a specification is
+ published,<br>
+ <em class="rfc2119"></em></li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> state who developed the specification, </li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> 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>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> include expectations about next steps,
+ and</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> 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
+ <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. </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
+ decisions of the Group are correctly reflected in subsequent drafts of the
+ technical report. An editor <em class="rfc2119">must</em> 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> 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
+ and the Advisory Board of any changes to these rules.</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>
+ is available at the W3C Web site.</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>
@@ -287,11 +280,10 @@
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>
+ class="rfc2119">should</em> 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
@@ -304,18 +296,17 @@
experience</a></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>
+ returned to the Working Group for further work, or abandoned. </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>
+ <dd><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
@@ -324,17 +315,16 @@
<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>
+ chartered Working Group or Interest Group to >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. A
+ Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> also publish a specification
+ as a Note if they stop work without producing a Recommendation. A
+ Working Group or Interest Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> 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
@@ -342,39 +332,36 @@
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>
+ <p>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
- changes</a> to the technical report since the previous publication.
- The community also appreciates public documentation of minor changes.</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the group's decision to request
+ advancement.</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must </em> obtain Director approval.</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119 ">must</em> provide public documentation of all <a
+ href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a> to the technical
+ report since the previous publication. The community also appreciates
+ public documentation of minor changes.</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
- 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
+ address</a> all issues raised about the document since the previous
+ maturity level.</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> provide public 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> 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 class="new"><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known
- implementation.</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 known implementation.</li>
</ul>
<p>Because the requirements for First Public Working Drafts are fairly
mechanical approval is normally fairly automatic, whereas for later stages
@@ -389,16 +376,16 @@
experience. Other changes (e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial
repairs, and minor error corrections) are minor changes.</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. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of stakeholders of
- the Web community, including the general public, have had adequate notice
- of the progress of the Working Group and thereby an opportunity to comment
- on the specification. Before approving transitions, the Director will
- consider who has actually reviewed the document and provided comments, the
- record of requests to and responses from reviewers, especially groups
- identified as dependencies in the charter, and seek evidence of clear
- communication to the general public about appropriate times and which
- content to review. </p>
+ <p>The requirements for <dfn>wide review</dfn> are not precisely defined by
+ the process. The objective is to ensure that the entire set of
+ stakeholders of the Web community, including the general public, have had
+ adequate notice of the progress of the Working Group and thereby an
+ opportunity to comment on the specification. Before approving transitions,
+ the Director will consider who has actually reviewed the document and
+ provided comments, the record of requests to and responses from reviewers,
+ especially groups identified as dependencies in the charter, and seek
+ evidence of clear communication to the general public about appropriate
+ times and which content to review. </p>
<p>For example, inviting review of new or significantly revised sections
published in Working Drafts, and tracking those comments and the Working
Group's responses, is generally a good practice which would often be
@@ -419,8 +406,9 @@
sufficiently clear, complete, and relevant to market needs that
independent interoperable implementations of each feature of the
specification will be realized. While no exhaustive list of requirements
- is provided here, when assessing that there is adequate implementation
- experience the Director will consider (though not be limited to):</p>
+ is provided here, when assessing that there is <dfn>adequate
+ implementation experience</dfn> the Director will consider (though not
+ be limited to):</p>
<ul>
<li>is each feature implemented, and how is this demonstrated; (for
example, is there a test suite)?</li>
@@ -445,11 +433,10 @@
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>. Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
+ reviews as early as possible. Working Groups are often reluctant to make <a
+ href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a> to a mature document,
+ particularly if this would cause significant compatibility problems due to
+ existing implementation. Working Groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
record substantive or interesting proposals raised by reviews but not
incorporated into a current specification.
<h3>7.4 <a name="rec-advance" id="rec-advance">Advancing a Technical Report
@@ -472,7 +459,7 @@
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
+ inform the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
Committee</a> and Working Group Chairs when a Working Group's request
for a specification to advance in maturity level is declined and and the
specification is returned to a Working Group for further work.</p>
@@ -484,7 +471,7 @@
<ul>
<li> <em class="rfc2119">should</em> document outstanding issues, and
parts of the document on which the Working Group does not have
- consensus.</li>
+ consensus, and</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>
@@ -496,32 +483,31 @@
4</a> of the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C
Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].</p>
<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 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. </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>
+ <p>A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish a Working Draft
+ to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes
+ to the document that would benefit from review from beyond the Working
+ Group<em class="rfc2119"></em>. </p>
+ <p>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. </p>
+ <p> </p>
+ <p>To publish a revised Working draft, a Working Group </p>
<ul>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the group's decision to request
- publication. Consensus is not required, as this is a procedural step.</li>
+ 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>
+ 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>
+ 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>
+ step,</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> report any changes in dependencies
- with other groups.</li>
+ with other groups,</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document outstanding issues and parts
- of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus.</li>
+ of the document on which the Working Group does not have consensus, and</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>
@@ -539,20 +525,19 @@
<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>
+ or been deferred,</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document changes to dependencies during
- the development of the specification. </li>
- <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document how adequate <a href="#implementation-experience">
- implementation experience</a> will be demonstrated.</li>
+ the development of the specification,</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document how adequate <a href="#implementation-experience">
+ implementation experience</a> will be demonstrated,</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>
+ <em class="rfc2119">must</em> be at least four weeks after publication,
+ and <em class="rfc2119">should</em> be longer for complex documents,</li>
+ <li>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><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the specification has received
+ <a href="#wide-review">wide review</a>, and</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> identify features in the document that
are considered "at risk". These features <em class="rfc2119">may</em>
be removed before advancement to Recommendation without a requirement to
@@ -576,12 +561,11 @@
expected next step)</li>
<li><a href="#tr-end">Working Group Note</a></li>
</ul>
- <p class="new">If there are any <a href="#substantive-change">substantive
- changes</a> made to a Last Call Candidate Recommendation other than to
- remove features explicitly identified as "at risk", the Working Group <em
- class="rfc2119">must</em> repeat the full process of publication as a
- Last Call Candidate Recommendation before the Working Group can request
- Recommendation status.</p>
+ <p>If there are any <a href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a>
+ made to a Last Call Candidate Recommendation other than to remove features
+ explicitly identified as "at risk", the Working Group <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
+ repeat the full process of publication as a Last Call Candidate
+ Recommendation before the Working Group can request Recommendation status.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
Committee</a> representatives <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a>
the decision to advance the technical report.</p>
@@ -592,38 +576,35 @@
<p>To publish a Last Call Candidate Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation,
a Working Group</p>
<ul>
- <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> republish the document,
- identifying it as the basis of a Request for Recommendation.</li>
- <li><span class="changed"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show adequate <a
- href="#implementation-experience">implementation experience</a>.</span><span
- class="from">(said preferably should be two interoperable
- implementations...)</span></li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> republish the document, identifying it
+ as the basis of a Request for Recommendation,</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show adequate <a href="#implementation-experience">implementation
+ experience</a>,</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the document has received <a
- href="#wide-review">wide review</a></li>
+ href="#wide-review">wide review,</a></li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that all issues raised during the
Last Call Candidate Recommendation review period have been <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
- addressed</a>.</li>
+ addressed</a>,</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must </em>identify any substantive issues raised
since the close of the review period by parties other than Advisory
- Committee representatives <span class="from">(was in 7.3)</span></li>
- <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document how the testing and
+ Committee representatives,</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> document how the testing and
implementation requirements identified as part of the transition to Last
- Call Candidate Recommendation have been met.</li>
- <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> identify where errata are
- tracked.</li>
+ Call Candidate Recommendation have been met,</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> identify where errata are tracked, and</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> remove features identified in the Last
Call Candidate Recommendation document as "at risk" without repeating
- the transition to Last Call Candidate Recommendation. <span class="from">(was
- in 7.4.3)</span> </li>
+ the transition to Last Call Candidate Recommendation.</li>
</ul>
<p>The Director</p>
<ul>
- <li><span class="new"><em class="rfc2119">should not</em> provisionally
- approve a Request for publication of a W3C Recommendation less than 35
- days after the publication of the Last Call Candidate Recommendation
- on which is it based [editor's note - this is to allow for the patent
- policy exclusion period to expire].</span></li>
- <li><span class="new"><em class="rfc2119">may</em> provisionally approve a
+ <li><span><em class="rfc2119">should not</em> provisionally approve a
+ Request for publication of a W3C Recommendation less than 35 days
+ after the publication of the Last Call Candidate Recommendation on
+ which is it based [editor's note - this is to allow for the patent
+ policy exclusion period to expire], and<br>
+ </span></li>
+ <li><span><em class="rfc2119">may</em> provisionally approve a
Recommendation with minimal implementation experience where there is a
compelling reason to do so. In such a case, the Director <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
explain the reasons for that decision. </span></li>
@@ -632,38 +613,38 @@
a Recommendation</a> below)</h5>
<p>To publish an Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation, a Working
Group</p>
- <ul class="new">
+ <ul>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> republish the document, identifying it
- as the basis of a Request for Recommendation.</li>
+ as the basis of a Request for Recommendation,</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the document has received <a
- href="#wide-review">wide review</a></li>
+ href="#wide-review">wide review, and<br>
+ </a></li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> address all errata.</li>
</ul>
- <h5>For <strong>all</strong> W3C Recommendations, in addition to meeting
- the <a href="file:///Users/chaals/Documents/w3c/ab/AB/tr.html#transition-reqs">general
+ <h5 id="for-all-recs">For <strong>all</strong> W3C Recommendations, in
+ addition to meeting the <a href="file:///Users/chaals/Documents/w3c/ab/AB/tr.html#transition-reqs">general
requirements for advancement</a>,</h5>
<ul>
<li>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the provisional
approval of a Request for publication of a W3C Recommendation to the <a
href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
- Committee</a>.</li>
+ Committee</a>,</li>
<li>The Advisory Committee review of the technical report <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
continue at least 28 days after the announcement of provisional approval
- to publish the Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation. <span class="from">(was
- 7.4.4)</span></li>
+ to publish the Edited Recommendation as a W3C Recommendation,</li>
<li>If there was any <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#def-Dissent"
rel="glossary" title="Definition of Dissent"><span class="dfn-instance">dissent</span></a>
- in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director <span class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em>
- publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general
- public</span>, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
- address</a> the comment <span class="new">at least 14 days before
- publication as a W3C Recommendation</span>. In this case the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
+ in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
+ publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the general
+ public, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
+ address</a> the comment >at least 14 days before publication as a
+ W3C Recommendation. In this case the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
Committee</a> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a>
- the decision.</li>
+ the decision,</li>
<li>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the publication
- of a W3C Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public.</li>
- <li>The "Status of the Document" <em class="rfc2119 changed">must</em>
- reflect whether it is provisionally approved, or published as a W3C
+ of a W3C Recommendation to other W3C groups and to the public, and</li>
+ <li>The "Status of the Document" <em class="rfc2119">must</em> reflect
+ whether it is provisionally approved, or published as a W3C
Recommendation.</li>
</ul>
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
@@ -674,30 +655,26 @@
an Edited Recommendation</a>, or</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> be <a href="#rec-rescind">rescinded</a>.</li>
</ul>
- <h3>7.5 <a name="tr-end" id="tr-end">Publishing a Working Group <span class="new">or
- Interest Group</span> Note</a></h3>
- <p class="new">Working Groups and Interest Groups publish material that is
- not a formal specification as Notes. This may include supporting
- documentation for a specification, such as requirements, use cases,
- non-normative good practices and the like.</p>
+ <h3>7.5 <a name="tr-end" id="tr-end">Publishing a Working Group or Interest
+ Group Note</a></h3>
+ <p>Working Groups and Interest Groups publish material that is not a formal
+ specification as Notes. This may include supporting documentation for a
+ specification, such as requirements, use cases, non-normative good
+ practices and the like.</p>
<p>Work on a technical report <em class="rfc2119">may</em> cease at any
time. Work <em class="rfc2119 new">should</em> cease if W3C or a Working
Group determines that it cannot productively carry the work any further.
If the Director <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/groups.html#GeneralTermination">closes
- a Working Group</a> W3C <em class="rfc2119 changed">must </em><span class="from">(was
- should ...)</span> publish any unfinished specifications on the
- Recommendation track as Working Group Notes. If a Working group decides,
- or the Director requires the Working Group to discontinue work on a
- technical report before completion <span class="changed">the Working
- Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em></span> <span class="from">(...
- but didn't say who should do this)</span> publish the document as a
+ a Working Group</a> W3C <em class="rfc2119">must </em> publish any
+ unfinished specifications on the Recommendation track as Working Group
+ Notes. If a Working group decides, or the Director requires the Working
+ Group to discontinue work on a technical report before completion the
+ Working Group <em class="rfc2119">should</em> publish the document as a
Working Group Note. </p>
- <p>In order to publish a Note a Working Group or Interest Group: <span class="from">(copied
- since notes are excluded from the requirements to move to a new maturity
- level)</span></p>
+ <p>In order to publish a Note a Working Group or Interest Group: </p>
<ul>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> record the group's decision to request
- advancement.</li>
+ advancement, and</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> public documentation of significant
changes to the technical report since the previous publication.</li>
</ul>
@@ -706,8 +683,8 @@
<li>End state: A technical report <em class="rfc2119">may</em> remain a
Working Group Note indefinitely</li>
<li>A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> resume work on the
- technical report at any time, <span class="new">at the maturity level
- the specification had before publication as a Note</span></li>
+ technical report at any time, at the maturity level the specification
+ had before publication as a Note</li>
</ul>
<p>The W3C Patent Policy does not specify any licensing requirements or
commitments for Working Group Notes, only for W3C Recommendations. See
@@ -790,12 +767,10 @@
Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>]
and in particular <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-Requirements">section
5</a> (bullet 10) and <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-PAG-conclude">section
- 7.5</a>. <span class="changed">A Working Group </span><span class="changed"><em
- class="rfc2119">may</em> request the Director to rescind a
- Recommendation which was a deliverable, or the Director </span><span class="changed"><em
- class="rfc2119">may</em> directly propose to rescind a Recommendation.
- </span><span class="from">(was "the Director calls for review when
- satisfied that [it is necessary]")</span></p>
+ 7.5</a>. A Working Group <em class="rfc2119">may</em> request the
+ Director to rescind a Recommendation which was a deliverable, or the
+ Director <em class="rfc2119">may</em> directly propose to rescind a
+ Recommendation. </p>
<p>To deprecate <em>part</em> of a Recommendation, W3C follows the process
for <a href="#rec-modify">modifying a Recommendation</a>.</p>
<p>Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical
@@ -804,13 +779,12 @@
<p>To propose rescinding a W3C Recommendation, a Working Group or the
Director</p>
<ul>
- <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> publish rationale for
- rescinding the Recommendation.</li>
- <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known
- implementation.</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> publish rationale for rescinding the
+ Recommendation.</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known implementation.</li>
</ul>
<p>In addition a Working Group proposing to rescind</p>
- <ul class="new">
+ <ul>
<li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the request to rescind has
received <a href="#wide-review">wide review</a></li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> show that the request to rescind is
@@ -818,8 +792,8 @@
</ul>
<p>In addition the Director, if proposing to rescind</p>
<ul>
- <li class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the request to
- rescind is based on public comment</li>
+ <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the request to rescind is
+ based on public comment</li>
</ul>
<p>The Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the proposal to
rescind a W3C Recommendation to other W3C groups, the public, and the <a
@@ -835,14 +809,14 @@
</ul>
<p>If there was any <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#def-Dissent"
rel="glossary" title="Definition of Dissent"><span class="dfn-instance">dissent</span></a>
- in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director <span class="new"><em class="rfc2119">must</em>
- publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C <strong>and the
- public</strong></span>, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
- address</a> the comment <span class="new">at least 14 days before
- publication</span> as a Rescinded Recommendation. In this case the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
+ in Advisory Committee reviews, the Director <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
+ publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C <strong>and the
+ public</strong>, and <em class="rfc2119">must</em> <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address">formally
+ address</a> the comment >at least 14 days before publication as a
+ Rescinded Recommendation. In this case the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
Committee</a> <em class="rfc2119">may</em> <a href="#ACAppeal">appeal</a>
the decision.</p>
- <h3>Good practices</h3>
+ <h3 id="good-practice">Good practices</h3>
<p>Refer to <a href="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/Transitions">"How to
Organize a Recommendation Track Transition"</a> in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/">Member
guide</a> for practical information about preparing for the reviews and