- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:20:50 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12776 --- Comment #7 from Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> 2011-06-01 12:20:48 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6 from Paul) > I do NOT believe the Normativity of a specification is necesarily the test of > whether it should be on the Recommendation track or not. The real test for me > is if the owning WG plans to maintain the specification or not. I agree with Paul here. While I know some members of the group seem to believe the determination for whether a document is Rec-track should be made based on whether it contains an normative requirements, that is at odds with the W3C Process doc, because the Process document very clearly allows for non-normative Recommendations. It seems like the members proposing that certain HTML WG drafts be changed to Working Group Notes instead of being Rec-track are proposing that because they know that will have the effect of making it necessary of the editors of those drafts to remove any normative requirements from them. So I would suggest that instead of adding anything to the HTML WG decision-policy doc to "Define process for deciding whether a draft is REC-track or Note-track", what should instead be added is "Define process for deciding whether a draft should contain any normative requirements". -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 1 June 2011 12:20:51 UTC