- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:31:39 +0000
- To: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- Cc: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 15:28, Carr, Wayne wrote: > That particular proposal wasn't changing anything about the formal stages in TR. It was only to use the Editor's draft on the TR page instead of periodically publishing a WG Draft. (this was a proposal just about that - there was a different larger proposal). > > As an example, the html5 draft on the html TR page [1] at this moment is dated 2011-05-25. It will be updated soon, but the point is that now WG drafts on TR pages can be so old they're pointless to look at. If they can't be updated say within 6 weeks, it would be better to publish the Editor's draft on that page (with any content not agreed to, including content that is significantly altered, as "recent change, to be reviewed by WG" or something like that (to avoid concerns over Editor changes not yet agreed to by the WG). > What about having a disclaimer in the SoTD that states "Caution, this is an Editor's draft and hence may contain changes not yet agreed to by the WG"... or some such. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 15:32:18 UTC