W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ACTION-95, ISSUE-65: Plan to publish a new WD of HTML-5

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:13:06 +0100
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C047B63B-BCFD-4DF9-ADD3-BE104FF92FEF@berjon.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

On Jan 30, 2009, at 01:01 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Earlier, the Process Document says:
>
> "In general, Working Groups embark on this journey with the intent  
> of publishing one or more Recommendations. However, W3C may end work  
> on a technical report at any time, or may require a Working Group to  
> conduct further work, possibly repeating one or more steps."
>
> As I understand it, a Working Draft signals the intent to proceed  
> along the Recommendation track, and the section you quoted describes  
> what happens if for whatever reason the Working Draft is taken off  
> that path. So what Boris said matches my understanding.

Nope. Besides, Karl was quoting form the TR page, not from the  
Process. The Process has this to say:

"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 document status section of a Working Draft  
for the group's expectations."
   -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q73

Then you have:

"7.1.3 Maturity Level When Ending Work on a Technical Report
Working Group Note
A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group to  
indicate that work has ended on a particular topic. A Working Group  
MAY publish a Working Group Note with or without its prior publication  
as a Working Draft."
   -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q75

The section you quote from is called "Advancing a Technical Report to  
Recommendation". In context, it doesn't contradict the above. Sorry to  
go all Process wonking at you but you brought the process into this,  
and I've chaired a WG that was tasked to produce *only* Notes ;-)

> I also see little evidence that a Working Draft sees wider, better  
> or more thorough review than an Editor's Draft. In the case of  
> HTML5, most feedback has been directly against the Editor's Draft,  
> so far as I can see.

Some of us have a different experience with that. But to avoid having  
to come up with metrics about whether what type of document gets what  
kind of review I'd rather we simply reached agreement on whether one  
is more harmful than the other. If you think EDs and WDs get the same  
level of review, then surely it doesn't matter to you whichever of  
those two it gets released as? :)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 00:13:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:28 GMT