W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2013

Re: w3process-ISSUE-74 (NeXtSteps?): Must specs describe next steps? [Document life cycle (ch 7)]

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:33:11 +0400
To: public-w3process@w3.org, "Revising W3C Process Community Group Issue Tracker" <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.w7y81ld0y3oazb@dhcp-219-197-wifi.yandex.net>
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:21:49 +0400, Revising W3C Process Community Group  
Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> w3process-ISSUE-74 (NeXtSteps?): Must specs describe next steps?  
> [Document life cycle (ch 7)]
> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/74
> Raised by: Ian Jacobs
> On product: Document life cycle (ch 7)
> In http://www.w3.org/mid/CFE36B99-1937-41DD-999B-7F9A6B4C22ED@w3.org Ian  
> explains:
>   Because of the patent policy, it is important that readers know
>   whether a group expects a document to become a Recommendation or not.
>   Also, when a group has been chartered to produce a Recommendation
>   but then plans change, it is important that a document state the
>   new expectation.
>  The draft says that the status section "should include expectations
>   about next steps, and". I don't think that's strong enough as
>   stated.  I think this should be a MUST to send clear signals relevant
>   to the patent policy.

I would be very happy to upgrade this requirement to a MUST. I think it's  
a really important part of the status information, and I often get  
frustrated when I can't find it.


Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 11:33:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:16 UTC