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

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

From: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:36:08 +0000
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A33EFAD64@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
Sorry, had some typos that would cause confusion - resenting with those fixed.
---
Some suggestions to get the TR publications to be closer to the most recent WG draft:

First Public Working Draft and Last Call Draft cannot be changed after publication because of the patent exclusion period associated with them. (But they can be followed at any time by a regular Working Draft.)

Candidate Rec if it has a substantive conformance changing edit has to go back to Last Call for the exclusion review, so Candidate Recs cannot be edited if it changes conformance.  But for edits that don't change conformance, why not allow edits without issuing a different Candidate Rec?  (so allow clarifying edits, but carefully indicate what changed after first publication - or even show the edits if the WG wants to). 

Proposed Rec - same as Candidate Rec for non-conformance changing edits, except frozen with no edits during AC review where PR has to be stable. (be able to terminate AC review and restart if a needed change would make it irrelevant).

But for regular heartbeat Working Drafts publications in the TR list, why can't they be updated as often as the WG wants to?
(e.g. after the WG publishes a Last Call or Candidate Rec or Proposed Rec, they can keep  publishing a regular TR Working Draft update to the TR list as often as they choose - every 2-3 weeks would mean the latest TR pub is close to the latest WG thinking).
Wouldn't that solve the problem of the most recent TR publication being far out of date?  Why not make it very simple to publish a WD every few weeks?

And also mark previous TR publications as "superseded" if there is a later TR publication.  ("superseded" may be a better word than "obsolete".  It could be for some specs, older RECs or CRs are still used in some setting after they have been superseded).  
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 17:36:43 UTC

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