Re: Pushing the current CR for TPE for REComenndation in 2017

> On 07 Nov 2017, at 10:49, Rob van Eijk <rob@blaeu.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> Could you please reitterate what the group’s exit criteria are in terms of the W3C process and the number of implementations?

Our charter says the TPE should be aligned with EU regulations and it should describe privacy and security implications of the specification.

The W3C Process, apart from some formalities (the WG must formally decide to publish a REC, must produce a disposition of comments, and must document changes) requires “wide review” and “implementation experience”.

What that means depends on the specification, but wide review is usually proved by showing comments from many different people or by showing that relevant parties (such as other WGs) were explicitly invited (whether or not they subsequently sent any comments).

And implementation experience is usually shown by having a test suite, the bigger the better, and showing for every (non-optional) test that there are two publicly available implementations. It is usually not necessary that there are any _complete_ implementations, just that everything has been implemented somewhere.

Not everything can be tested, or not in (semi-)automatic way, and in that case the transition request to the Director should explain that. E.g., rewriting something in a different (formal) language can suffice to show that it can be implemented. E.g., the character entities of HTML are defined in a REC (by the Math WG) and that REC already contains two “implementations” of itself, viz., a DTD and an XSLT program, so no further implementations were needed.



Bert
--
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France