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

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

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:04:11 +0100
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <63930C77AA7F3A4C8C7D5D7F2BB2FFEA7CFD9BD0B7@QEO40072.de.t-online.corp>
Please make sure to file this discussion and solution away in an issue.

http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/


Thanks
Kai


> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Carr, Wayne [mailto:wayne.carr@intel.com]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Februar 2012 01:26
> An: Robin Berjon
> Cc: Charles McCathieNevile; public-w3process@w3.org
> Betreff: RE: editing RECs after publication -> RE: "Living Standards"
> 
> +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 08:04:46 UTC

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