Re: Relation to Standards Track

On 27 Nov 2012, at 12:48 AM, timeless wrote:

> (I may have written on this before, but, oh well.)
> 
> Relation to Standards Track [1].
>> The specification must not cause confusion about its status, in particular with respect to W3C Technical Reports.
>> For example, specifications must not suggest that they are standards or on the standards-track.
> 
> I think this second sentence is problematic on its own.
> 
> CGs can publish documents as proposals for specifications, but not
> specifications.

Why do you say that?

What do you mean by "specification?" I think it's ok to use the word in its English-language sense of "specifies something." 

I could imagine this scenario or similar:

Class: CG Draft Report or (when done) CG Report
Instance (of title): "The Foo Specification"

> 
> "Documents SHOULD indicate that they are NOT specifications. They MAY
> indicate that they are PROPOSALs for specifications. With the
> following suggested text: «This is not a specification.» «This is a
> proposal for a specification.»"
> 
>> For draft specifications,
> ...
>> <p>Copyright © YEAR(S) the Contributors to the SPECIFICATION NAME/VERSION Specification,
> 
> "Specification" should be replaced with "DRAFT Specification".



> 
>> For final specifications,
> 
> Personally, while CGs aren't publishing REQ track documents, I think
> that the outcome should be FINAL PROPOSED Specification.
> 
>> The following paragraph appears at the top of each draft specification:
>> <p>This specification was published by the <a
> 
> Insert DRAFT.
> 
>> The following paragraph appears at the top of each final specification:
>> <p>This specification was published by the
> 
> Insert FINAL PROPOSED
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/reports/reqs/
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my mobile device
> 
> 

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447

Received on Thursday, 29 November 2012 13:20:29 UTC