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

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

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:26:04 +0000
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A33EF17B1@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
+1

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:08 PM
>To: Carr, Wayne
>Cc: Charles McCathieNevile; public-w3process@w3.org
>Subject: Re: editing RECs after publication -> RE: "Living Standards"
>
>On Feb 9, 2012, at 20:49 , Carr, Wayne wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>Yes, that all seems rather reasonable to me. I've never pushed a PER through, but
>I've never heard complaints that it was particularly painful either.
>
>> New features goes through the whole process to REC.
>
>That's not something we could possibly change since it has a direct impact on IP.
>
>> None of that seems bad - is it a problem to actually get through?
>
>I would tend to think that the biggest problem is making sure WDs are reasonably
>up to date, far more than RECs.
>
>--
>Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 00:26:39 UTC

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