- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:16:34 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Mike Smith <mike@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
I'd like to extend a big welcome to all our friends who didn't know about W3C Process, and didn't want to either! On Sep 30, 2009, at 13:45 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Sep 30, 2009, at 3:40 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: >> To the best of my knowledge you won't find anything in Process >> stating what maturity levels you can reference; it's a PubRules >> thing. PubRules says: >> >> - "In general, documents do not advance to Recommendation with >> normative references to W3C specifications that are not yet >> Recommendations." >> - To transition to PR you should check that you're only referencing >> PR+ specifications. >> - To transition to CR you should check that you're only referencing >> PR+ specifications. > > It's a requirement to reference only PR+ specifications to enter CR? > That doesn't sound right. It would make it very hard to ever get to > CR with a spec that has a significant dependency chain of new specs, > and would make mutual references completely impossible. I'm well aware of that — don't shoot the messenger. It's documented here: "Does this specification have any normative references to W3C specifications that are not yet Proposed Recommendations?" http://www.w3.org/2005/08/online_xslt/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions.xsl&docstatus=cr-tr That's from the Transition Guide, pointed to as part of PubRules. > I can find historical counter-examples: > > DOM 3 LS entered CR on Nov 7, 2003, and it referenced DOM 3 Core > which at the time was a WD and entered CR on the same day. Selectors > Level 3 entered CR in November 2001 (it later went back to WD) and > it cited multiple Working Drafts normatively. I know, there are many more. I wouldn't be surprised if the Two Steps Behind rule (which I do find a bit lax to be honest) was something that was agreed to in a Director's Call for one given document and somehow percolated into tradition. > We should probably seek input from the Team on the actual rules on > this. Yup. Doug? Mike? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 12:17:04 UTC