Re: Editor's call February 22

So FPWD documents do not need sections on privacy, security, or 
internationalization?


peter



On 2/21/23 17:38, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 2023, at 2:13 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to have some information on what is required for W3C 
>> publication of FPWD beyond passing the checks already in place on the 
>> GitHub repositories.   For example, is it required that all documents have 
>> sections on privacy considerations, security considerations, and 
>> internationalization considerations?
>
> Ted provided some information in a PR comment [1]
>
>> FPWD is a heartbeat action, as are all the Editors' Drafts that get 
>> published between FPWD and CR. FPWD /does/ require group consensus to 
>> publish, but there are no requirements about its /content/, which has even 
>> less weight than the content of a WG NOTE, which has almost no weight. An 
>> FPWD /could/ be pure boilerplate, or a collection of sections that entirely 
>> disagree with each other, or a bunch of Guttenberg Project or Lorem Ipsum text.
>
>> A pointer to a document on the rules for W3C publication would also be useful.
>
> Probably mostly in the Publication Rules [2] and Process Document [3].
>
> Generally, the FPWD docs will be prepared with a planned publication date 
> and saved in the repository (for example see the snapshot for rdf-canon 
> [4]). This can be done by adding `?specStatus=FPWD&pubDate=YYYY-MM-DD` to 
> the browser and using the control in the upper right to save the document as 
> HTML, along with files used directly by the finished document. Then, pass it 
> through the pubrules checker [5] and link checker [6]. This sometimes finds 
> minor problems that will need to be corrected. Generally, you can get a URL 
> for a formatted version of the spec after it’s been uploaded using the raw 
> file viewer for the Overview.html in GitHack.
>
> Most of the technical Pubrules requirements are handled by ReSpec 
> automatically based on specStatus.
>
> Once FPWD has been published, the group can decide to use Echidna for 
> subsequent updates automatically via the GitHub action we have in place up 
> until CR.
>
> Gregg
>
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-schema/pull/9#issuecomment-1437182529
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2003/05/27-pubrules
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#first-wd
> [4] https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/tree/main/publication-snapshots/FPWD
> [5] https://www.w3.org/pubrules/
> [6] https://validator.w3.org/checklink
>
>> peter
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 2/18/23 14:54, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>>> We have an Editor’s call scheduled again for this Wednesday [1]. If you 
>>>> have items to discuss, please reply so we can build an agenda. Otherwise, 
>>>> I suggest we keep the slot and Zoom channel open for general discussion 
>>>> in order to preserve normal WG time for more more charter-related 
>>>> discussions.
>>>>
>>>> Gregg Kellogg
>>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>>
>>>> [1]https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/28b3790b-0fd4-41e3-bfd4-7deca177f6df
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>