- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:38:59 +0100
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 30, 2009, at 01:29 , Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach Robin Berjon:
>>> As I understand it, a Working Draft signals the intent to proceed
>>> along the Recommendation track, and the section you quoted describes
>>> what happens if for whatever reason the Working Draft is taken off
>>> that path. So what Boris said matches my understanding.
>>
>> Nope. Besides, Karl was quoting form the TR page, not from the
>> Process.
>> The Process has this to say:
>>
>> "A Working Draft is a document that W3C has published for review by
>> the community, including W3C Members, the public, and other technical
>> organizations. Some, but not all, Working Drafts are meant to advance
>> to Recommendation; see the document status section of a Working Draft
>> for the group's expectations."
>> -- http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#q73
>
> But, all WDs were -- at some point by someone -- intended to become
> Recs, no? Or, if they weren't, didn't they say so from the start?
A WD has to indicate in its status section what the intent of the
group is. I'm proposing that we publish with the status indicating
that the group is divided on whether it should be normative or not
(and since no one ever reads the status section, have a big red
warning in the intro).
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 00:39:35 UTC