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

Re: Relation to Standards Track

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:17:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CACsW8eFeEp1WeUBmkGsA731WihY3W1Aniwe_WdNOOq0Gfao+pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-council@w3.org
First, you aren't using the simple English "specification", you're
using the title-cased "Specification" (yes the explanation is
lowercase).

Second, I think in English a "specification" is seen as heavier than a
"recommendation".

Third, consider Wikipedia's page on the subject [1]:
Specification (technical standard)
"Specification" redirects here. For other uses, see Specification
(disambiguation).

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, a specification _is_ a technical standard.

The reason for this suggestion thread is to prevent people from
misinterpreting resultant documents.

Thinking about this further and certainly based on this message, I
think the word "specification" shouldn't be in documents.

Since you were trading on "simple English", how about substituting
"proposal" everywhere that "specification" is currently used.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_(technical_standard)

On 11/29/12, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>
> On 27 Nov 2012, at 12:48 AM, timeless wrote:
>
>> (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.
>
> Why do you say that?
>
> What do you mean by "specification?" I think it's ok to use the word in its
> English-language sense of "specifies something."
>
> I could imagine this scenario or similar:
>
> Class: CG Draft Report or (when done) CG Report
> Instance (of title): "The Foo Specification"
>
>>
>> "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
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 14:18:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 November 2012 14:18:27 GMT