Re: A suggestion: Add status flags to BPs?

>> I don’t see how we can use the “unstable” flag at the time we release
the document as FPWD. It would be preferable to keep the “unstable” ones in
our back-end/wiki/work-in-progress status .

Ghislain,

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but this is a draft.   Even conveying an
unstable BP might still be useful.   In the case of the BP on privacy I'd
rather rate that as unstable until we've had a chance to get feedback from
W3C privacy activity and other groups.

Eric S



On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Ghislain Atemezing <
auguste.atemezing@eurecom.fr> wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
> Le 23 janv. 2015 à 12:32, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> a écrit :
>
> *However* I have a suggestion that I hope might be useful. As well as the
> issues that are raised in the doc, I think we could add a flag to each BP
> that would follow the (well known among some) pattern of
>
> - Unstable (don't trust this one folks!)
> - Testing (what do you think? Any implementation feedback you can give us?)
> - Stable (we think we're done)
>
> (see http://www.w3.org/2003/06/sw-vocab-status/ns)
>
>
> These are quite good options to look at during the next teleconf. However,
> looking at the process of standardization, I presume that releasing a FPWD
> means “hey folks there, we need your feedback”, that almost meaning all our
> BPs sections are in “testing” flag. And getting to “recommendation” will
> means we have all the BP “stable”. What I mean is that, I don’t see how we
> can use the “unstable” flag at the time we release the document as FPWD. It
> would be preferable to keep the “unstable” ones in our
> back-end/wiki/work-in-progress status .
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ghislain
>
>