- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 14:11:24 -0400
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
This is particularly relevant to us, since we work in public. Editors, please read... cheers, Dan ----- Forwarded message from "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> ----- From: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:31:37 -0500 Subject: Style for Group-internal Drafts (or, "How to avoid confusion with TR page documents") Chairs, A new resource titled "Style for Group-internal Drafts" [1] is now available (and linked from The Art of Consensus [2]). From the introduction: Many Working Groups publish drafts for internal group review between publications on the TR page; please review the Working Group "Heartbeat" Requirement for information about expectations for regular publishing on the TR page. In the interest of clarity of the W3C process, we request that Working Groups take care that documents are labeled with their true status. Sometimes labels like "W3C Working Draft" are copied from documents that are truly a product of the W3C Working Draft process to documents that are not, or at least not yet. The guidelines below are intended to reduce confusion between group-internal drafts (some of which are Member-only, while others are public) and published documents that have been through additional W3C processes. Documents that follow these guidelines have no formal standing within W3C. If you have already published such internal drafts (sometimes called "Editor's Drafts") and they do not follow these guidelines, please consider revising them. In many cases, this may be as simple as changing a link to a style sheet and changing "Working Draft" to "Internal Draft" or "Editor's Draft"; see the guidelines for more information. Thank you, _ Ian [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/03/28-editor-style.html [2] http://www.w3.org/Guide/ -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447 ----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 18:11:25 UTC