Re: publishing working drafts; Status of the Document

Nick,
Apologies.  I'm reading too fast. You do in fact say that it is a streamlined version.  What's not clear to me is whether that status qualifier is intended for both TPE and TCS documents and both will published as Public Working Drafts.
I'm also not clear on the intent to restore some essential non-normative use case explanations.  I think that is essential, as I said in my last message. Removing so much doesn't in my view add clarity to the reader, it confuses him or her  or at least me. 
Cheers,
John



On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:18 AM, John Simpson <john@consumerwatchdog.org> wrote:

> Hi Nick
> 
> Do we plan to publish the TCS as a working draft? The current editors draft has some explanation that this a "significantly streamlined version of the compliance spec."
> 
> You proposed text below doesn't note that.  Is the status language you've proposed just for the TPE?
> 
> It seems to me that the TCS needs to note that it has been streamlined and there should be some explanation of what the group's intentions are regarding non-normative text in the future.
> 
> For what it is worth, from my perspective the streamlined editor's draft has removed so much non-normative explanatory use cases  that I don't understand the intent or impact of the normative language.  I fear we'll arrive at "consensus" but discover we actually don't agree on what the normative language means.
> 
> So, are we publishing a Public Working Draft of the TCS?  Will their be specific qualifying status language relating to that document? Will we make clear our ultimate intent for non-normative language, i.e. , use case examples in the TCS?
> 
> Cheers,
> John
> 
> 
> On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:43 PM, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:
> 
>> I have made all the changes I had notes for from last week's teleconference (areas in TPE where we needed to mark notes or issues) and didn't obtain new comments or any feedback on the Status of the Document that I proposed.
>> 
>> I will move forward with preparing Working Drafts for the Webmaster to publish on Tuesday. I would ask that if there are any show-stopping issues that would prevent us from publishing these documents as Working Drafts that they be raised no later than Monday.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>> 
>> On Apr 23, 2013, at 11:47 PM, Nicholas Doty <npdoty@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On our call last week, it sounded like, while there was support for publishing Working Drafts as we are required to do, there was a concern that we be explicit about noting that decisions are still to be made and the current state of the draft is not final. I regularly try to note this in the "Status of This Document" section, but it might help Working Group participants feel more comfortable if that language is more explicit. I would propose something like the following:
>>> 
>>>> This document is a snapshot of ongoing discussions within the Tracking Protection Working Group. Text present or not present in this document does not determine consensus within the Working Group; discussions and debates are ongoing. Members of the Working Group wish to emphasize that this draft is a work in progress and not a decided outcome or guaranteed direction for future versions of this document.
>>>> 
>>>> This draft is substantially revised from the previous Working Draft; much non-normative text has been removed to provide clarity for the reader and many options have been condensed by the editors and participants in the group. An issue tracking system is available for recording raised, open, pending review, closed, and postponed issues regarding this document.
>>>> 
>>>> This document was published by the Tracking Protection Working Group as a Working Draft. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-tracking-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome.
>>>> 
>>>> Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
>>> 
>>> Comments welcome. As I tried to make clear on the call last week, we are required to publish Working Drafts, and we always do our best to make clear to all that those drafts are in progress rather than complete or consensus text.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For context, from October published Working Drafts:
>>>> This document is a snapshot of live discussions within the Tracking Protection Working Group. It does not yet capture all of our work. For example, we have issues that are [PENDING REVIEW] with complete text proposals that have not yet made it into this draft. Text in blue boxes presents multiple options the group is considering. Options included in this draft should not be read as limitations on the potential outcome, but rather simply as possible options that are currently under consideration by the working group. This draft is substantially revised from the previous Working Draft. An issue tracking system is available for recording raised, open, pending review, closed, and postponed issues regarding this document.
>>>> 
>>>> This document was published by the Tracking Protection Working Group as a Working Draft. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation. If you wish to make comments regarding this document, please send them to public-tracking@w3.org (subscribe, archives). All feedback is welcome.
>>>> 
>>>> Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
>>>  http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-tracking-compliance-20121002/
>> 
> 

Received on Friday, 26 April 2013 17:27:30 UTC