W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Length of LC comment period

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 06:56:12 -0800
Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <02959724-6F06-4CF4-BFCD-02B3558CD87F@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:34 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> Note though: process-wise, Web Storage being in LC *is* a blocker  
>> to the
>> Widgets specification going to REC. Per W3C Process, a specification
>> cannot go to PR or REC unless all of its dependencies are at REC.  
>> It's
>> true though that it would not be a blocker to going to CR.
>
> As far as I can tell (from our discussion on IRC and from my memory  
> of the
> requirements), there is a pubrules suggestion that CR specs should  
> only
> depend on CR+ specs, and PR specs should only depend PR+ specs, but  
> it's
> neither a hard rule, nor in the W3C process.

My understanding of the relevant text in pubrules is that the two  
things you mention are suggestions, but the statement that REC specs  
should only depend on REC is presented as a requirement with  
possibility of exceptions.

The specific wording in the pubrules for PR transition is is: "Does  
this specification have any normative references to W3C specifications  
that are not yet Proposed Recommendations? Note: In general, documents  
do not advance to Recommendation with normative references to W3C  
specifications that are not yet Recommendations."

This seems to make PR/PR+ depenency suggested, and REC/REC dependency  
apparently mandatory, though with possibility of exceptions (due to  
the "generally").

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 14:56:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT