W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > February 2012

editing RECs after publication -> RE: "Living Standards"

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 19:49:16 +0000
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A33EF15D5@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
>2. It would be good if W3C process allowed for simple editing of "finished" specs.
>As far as I know it is really easy for a WG to approve errata, which are meant to
>be linked from a spec anyway, although there is no mechanism for a spec to say
>"there are *actual* erratat there you should look at" as opposed to "there might
>be something...". I've never tried to push through a Proposed Edited
>Recommendation (although I have added work for people who did try to do so by
>asking for it to reflect reality better, which they kindly did).

http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify  (section of the process doc)

For changes that don't impact conformance (like changing examples, or simple clarifications), the process says: "The first two classes of change require no technical review of the proposed changes, although a Working Group MAY issue a Call for Review. The modified Recommendation is published according to the Team's requirements, including Publication Rules [PUB31]."  That seems pretty simple as long as the change is fairly minor do it doesn't impact conformance.

If it effects conformance, but isn't a new feature (so an implementation that was conformant no longer is, or the reverse), it looks like it requires implementations for what is changed and a 4 week AC review and Director decision.  That seems pretty reasonable.  It doesn't look like anything that shouldn't be necessary.  That's for an Edited Recommendation.

New features goes through the whole process to REC.

(and there's the Proposed Corrections alternative to the Edited Recommendation that doesn't require AC review, but has just as long a review period, and is in a separate doc.)

None of that seems bad - is it a problem to actually get through?
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 19:49:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:07 UTC