[Bug 12776] Define process for deciding whether a draft is REC-track or Note-track

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12776

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |julian.reschke@gmx.de

--- Comment #4 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2011-05-31 12:54:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Perhaps there should be some clearer guidelines to help editors decide whether
> their work should be Rec or Note?  I'd say any draft which is only meant to
> provide guidance for a select community, such as authors, should be note.  Any
> draft intended to describe an authoring language profile, by reference to the
> normative requirements of another spec, should be note. Any draft that does not
> intend to provide any normative implementation requirements should be note.
> 
> Conversely, any draft that seeks to define normative requirements for features,
> which are not also normatively defined in another spec from this group, should
> be rec.
> 
> Guidelines like these would mean that drafts like the polyglot guidlines, alt
> text guidelines, markup language reference or authoring reference/guides should
> be note.  However, specs like 2D Canvas, Microdata, HTML+RDFa, etc. would be on
> the Rec track.

Lachlan, is this type of distinction backed by a W3C definition of what can be
a REC and what can't?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 12:54:55 UTC