W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > October 2013

Re: [admin] Updating /TR/shortname for shelved work items

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 14:45:25 +0000
To: <anssi.kostiainen@intel.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <071C79E3-4400-4ED9-BF01-F01189CA88CB@nokia.com>
Marcos, you are suggesting that we have given the shelving enough time and I agree with that assessment.

In general publishing work as a Note that is not going further on the Recommendation Track is a good idea, as long as that does not misinform or confuse people. Note material can always be resumed on the Rec track if there is interest and the WG is still operating.

However, I do not think we should publish anything as a Note if we think it is so incomplete or incorrect that it would cause harm, despite any disclaimer.

Thus I suggest we have a CfC for the Note publication, so WG members can look at and review the drafts and indicate any concern regarding publication as Notes of any of them. I'll send a CfC today.

Anssi, would you be able to help with preparing Note drafts, including validation, link check and pubrules? I can help out with the status section, I don't think the current shelving warning is appropriate - instead we need appropriate language in the status section.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch

On Oct 8, 2013, at 9:28 AM, ext Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:

> On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>> On 10/8/13 2:49 AM, ext Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
>>> Also, has there been a W3C-wide decision on this?
>> Yes, it's called `publish a WG Note` (and don't deploy WG specific process that overrides the PD) ;-)
> So let's publish a bunch of NOTEs then :-)
> Thanks,
> -Anssi
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 14:55:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:01 UTC