W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-council@w3.org > November 2012

Relation to Standards Track

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:48:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CACsW8eGz21_ZRHX6Nov_wMM+rcXC3adpxw9UEBxwRisAU88Wyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-council@w3.org
(I may have written on this before, but, oh well.)

Relation to Standards Track [1].
> The specification must not cause confusion about its status, in particular with respect to W3C Technical Reports.
> For example, specifications must not suggest that they are standards or on the standards-track.

I think this second sentence is problematic on its own.

CGs can publish documents as proposals for specifications, but not
specifications.

"Documents SHOULD indicate that they are NOT specifications. They MAY
indicate that they are PROPOSALs for specifications. With the
following suggested text: «This is not a specification.» «This is a
proposal for a specification.»"

> For draft specifications,
...
> <p>Copyright © YEAR(S) the Contributors to the SPECIFICATION NAME/VERSION Specification,

"Specification" should be replaced with "DRAFT Specification".

> For final specifications,

Personally, while CGs aren't publishing REQ track documents, I think
that the outcome should be FINAL PROPOSED Specification.

> The following paragraph appears at the top of each draft specification:
> <p>This specification was published by the <a

Insert DRAFT.

> The following paragraph appears at the top of each final specification:
> <p>This specification was published by the

Insert FINAL PROPOSED


[1] http://www.w3.org/community/reports/reqs/

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 06:49:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 November 2012 06:49:06 GMT