- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 12:35:37 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12776 --- Comment #3 from Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> 2011-05-31 12:35:37 UTC --- Perhaps there should be some clearer guidelines to help editors decide whether their work should be Rec or Note? I'd say any draft which is only meant to provide guidance for a select community, such as authors, should be note. Any draft intended to describe an authoring language profile, by reference to the normative requirements of another spec, should be note. Any draft that does not intend to provide any normative implementation requirements should be note. Conversely, any draft that seeks to define normative requirements for features, which are not also normatively defined in another spec from this group, should be rec. Guidelines like these would mean that drafts like the polyglot guidlines, alt text guidelines, markup language reference or authoring reference/guides should be note. However, specs like 2D Canvas, Microdata, HTML+RDFa, etc. would be on the Rec track. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 12:35:42 UTC