- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:42:18 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12776 --- Comment #8 from Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 2011-06-01 12:42:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > > 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". tl;dr version: that's a separate bug. Until or unless the following bugs are resolved, we still need a process for deciding whether a given document is REC-track or Note-track: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12725 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12726 Additionally, there are the following Formal Objections that we need to resolve: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011May/0050.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011May/0051.html (where the above mentioned bugs were entered as a result of tracking these FOs). Even if the bugs are resolved, unless the FOs are withdrawn it makes sense to document the process by which the working group determined which track it was pursuing for any given document. -- 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 12:42:19 UTC