Re: w3process-ISSUE-80: Publishing Note to end unfinished REC should only be SHOULD

On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:26:21 +0400, Ian Jacobs <> wrote:

> On Dec 13, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile  
> <> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:11:36 +0400, Ian Jacobs <> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> By that rationale, the requirement would be: The WG should do it. But  
>>> if they don't, or if there is no WG, the Team MUST do it."
>> Yes.
>>> Even if making Team responsible adds some degree of enforceability, it  
>>> is not clear to me that republication as a NOTE is critical.
>>> It's a good practice. But unfortunately it does not happen all the  
>>> time. And it does not seem to create big issues when it does not
>>> happen. I guess that's why I am not yet convinced it should be a MUST.
>> I do see it create issues in communities who are fairly disconnected  
>> from W3C (often by language as well as what they do), and who pick up a  
>> latest working draft that is waaay out of date and assume it is a real  
>> requirement. This is essentially the same argument that others have  
>> advanced in favour of scrapping TR for "living documents" (which I  
>> don't think is the right solution), and they have apparently seen it in  
>> different places.
>> If you propose to maintain an archive of globally-relevant technical  
>> work for decades (and you apparently do) I think it does behoove you to  
>> provide a slightly higher level of care than "oh, we just abandoned  
>> that stuff and left it lying in the corner as is - hopefully not many  
>> people will find it unless they understand the complete context of what  
>> happened in the 14 years since".
>> Republishing something as a Note isn't a big deal (I hope - otherwise  
>> what needs to be fixed is the publication process, because that is one  
>> of the most central parts of what W3C does). Change the status, date,  
>> stylesheet and you're done. It could probably even be automated.
>> I think it would be well worth the small cost if W3C took this  
>> seriously as a responsibility instead of regarding it as an optional  
>> bit of niceness.
> We'll want to be sure W3M is aware of this request since it imposes a  
> resource allocation commitment (however small).

Indeed. (Vanishingly, I hope). Given that at least the CEO and the COO  
were in the previous discussion, and the COO was taking an active part, I  
presume they are sufficiently aware of the commitment required.



Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex         Find more at

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 10:53:19 UTC