W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Spec Guidelines

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 11 Mar 2002 08:29:17 -0600
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1015856958.5227.124.camel@dirk>
On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 10:09, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> At 03:22 PM 3/8/02 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote:
> >I'm not sure I agree. Pubrules are hard and fast rules;
> >if you don't follow them, publication is rejected. It
> >should be kept as short as possible.
> 
> Pubrules makes also reference to "How to Write a W3C Technical Report",
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Guide/Reports
> 
> which is considerably lengthier than pubrules itself.

It's also obsolete:

  Most of this document is now in the W3C Manual of Style in
  development on spec-prod. --SusanL, 17 November 2001


>  It seems that the 
> reference is normative -- "Editors and Team contacts should consult 'How to 
> Write a W3C Technical Report' for detailed guidance." -- i.e., you have to 
> do the stuff in "../Reports".  Is that correct?

no. It says "should", not "must".

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 09:29:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:11 GMT