W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2005

Re: document publishing [was: [ALL] Agenda 10 Feb telecon 1800 UTC]

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:32:48 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050211092050.026c6750@127.0.0.1>
To: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

At 12:47 PM 2/10/2005 -0500, Phil Tetlow wrote:
>Ive just found the following guidelines on W3C notes submission
>(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/submission.html). Is this
>the correct procedure?

Not for Working Group documents, no.

"The Art of Consensus" [1] has a section titled "The Recommendation Track"
with several references of use to all document editors, whether the document
is intended to end as a W3C Working Group Note or as a W3C Recommendaion.

In particular, the W3C Manual of Style [2] gives the expected format
of a W3C Technical Report and the Publication Rules [3] describe
specific criteria (e.g. valid markup) that will be checked prior to the
Webmaster accepting our documents for publication.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Guide/Overview.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/
[3] http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules

(For OEP's benefit; note also the link "How to allocate namespaces
for your specifications" [4] which documents recommendations for
allocating namespace URIs.)

[4] http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri

Once your Task Force has an editors' draft that you feel conforms to
the W3C Manual of Style and the pubrules, the Task Force may ask
at a WG telecon for WG approval to request publication of this draft
as a W3C Working Draft.  After the WG has reviewed and approved
the Task Force draft the WG chairs and I then make the formal
publication request to the W3C Webmaster.
Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 14:33:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:14 GMT