- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:32:48 -0500
- To: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
- Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
At 12:47 PM 2/10/2005 -0500, Phil Tetlow wrote: >Ive just found the following guidelines on W3C notes submission >(http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/submission.html). Is this >the correct procedure? Not for Working Group documents, no. "The Art of Consensus" [1] has a section titled "The Recommendation Track" with several references of use to all document editors, whether the document is intended to end as a W3C Working Group Note or as a W3C Recommendaion. In particular, the W3C Manual of Style [2] gives the expected format of a W3C Technical Report and the Publication Rules [3] describe specific criteria (e.g. valid markup) that will be checked prior to the Webmaster accepting our documents for publication. [1] http://www.w3.org/Guide/Overview.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/ [3] http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules (For OEP's benefit; note also the link "How to allocate namespaces for your specifications" [4] which documents recommendations for allocating namespace URIs.) [4] http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri Once your Task Force has an editors' draft that you feel conforms to the W3C Manual of Style and the pubrules, the Task Force may ask at a WG telecon for WG approval to request publication of this draft as a W3C Working Draft. After the WG has reviewed and approved the Task Force draft the WG chairs and I then make the formal publication request to the W3C Webmaster.
Received on Friday, 11 February 2005 14:33:16 UTC