- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 11:54:20 +0100
- To: "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: "Jeff Jaffe" <jeff@w3.org>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>, "Ralph Swick" <swick@w3.org>, "Advisory Board" <ab@w3.org>, "W3C Process Community Group" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Tue, 05 Nov 2013 11:27:08 +0100, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 5, 2013, at 16:28 , Charles McCathie Nevile
> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>
>>> That's fine. Just give people a name they can use (a consistent name)
>>> if they wish.
>>
>> How about "getting ready for LCCR"?
>
> a name for the *document* that they believe is their candidate.
"Proposed Last Call draft"? "Editor's draft proposal for CR"? "The draft
before the draft that will be proposed as CR"? "Working Draft that seems
to resolve all known open issues but needs a linkcheck before we propose
it for CR"?
I'm unclear why a working draft needs a particular name, and sceptical
that adding such names to the process is helpful.
The status section is there to clarify exactly where a document is up to,
when it is between the clearly defined stages. And Working Groups are
meant to be freer to determine how they want to handle the progression.
Against that, I'd rather not define lots of stage names.
If there are clear requests based on multiple groups doing the same thing
I think we should reconsider this question. I haven't seen that to date.
cheers
chaals
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 10:55:02 UTC