In reviewing Process section 7.7.2 in relation to another thread,
I notice a few places where the text isn't clear.
#1) "In the latter two cases, the
resulting Recommendation may be called
an Edited Recommendation."
It isn't clear what the "latter two cases" are. The reader has to
go back and reconstruct what the different cases are to figure out
what the last two are. In the 2005 version of the process there
used to be a list. I'd guess the current text was based on a
different shorter list in an editor's draft. It's better to leave
out the list (to keep it shorter), but this wording needs to
"substantive" changes had already been defined (they are the two
cases referred to in the current text).
"Where there have been editorial or substantive changes, the resulting Recommendation may be called an Edited
#2) "When requesting the publication
of an edited Recommendation as described in this section, in
addition to meeting the requirements for the relevant maturity
level, a Working Group"
There should be a ":" after "Group".
"Edited Recommendation" is a term already used as in #1 above
where someone may choose to have that in the title. But, "edited Recommendation"
with lower case "e" does not mean those instances where they've
chosen to use that name. What's meant there is either of the two
cases where the text of the spec is modified (not the first case
where they're patching broken links) regardless of whether they
chose to use the "Edited" name. Using the same words with upper
or lower case to mean two different things is confusing.
requesting the publication of a Recommendation where the
specification text has been modified as described above, in
addition to meeting the requirements for the relevant
maturity level, a Working Group:"
address all recorded errata."
I assume "address" includes looked at and decided to defer
until the next time because it isn't clear what to do or defer
because the errata is a feature request. With it being
"should" this seems fairly meaningless. If left in, it could
be changed to a requirement to explain why errata weren't
"should indicate which errata were
taken care of in the updated REC and why any others were