[tr] Proposed New Outline

Current outline:
  #  General requirements for Technical Reports
  #  7.1 Maturity Levels
  #  7.2 General Requirements for Advancement on the Recommendation Track
  #      7.2.1 Substantive Change
  #      7.2.2 Wide Review
  #      7.2.3 Implementation Experience
  #  7.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities
  #  7.4 Advancing a Technical Report to Recommendation
  #      7.4.1 Working Draft
  #          7.4.1.a First Public Working Draft
  #          7.4.1.b Revised Public Working Drafts
  #      7.4.2 Last Call Candidate Recommendation
  #      7.4.3 Publication of a W3C Recommendation
  #          7.4.3.a Publishing a Last Call Candidate Recommendation
  #                  as a W3C Recommendation
  #          7.4.3.b Publishing an Edited Recommendation
  #          7.4.3.c For all W3C Recommendations
  #  7.5 Publishing a Working Group or Interest Group Note
  #  7.6 Modifying a W3C Recommendation
  #      7.6.1 Errata Management
  #      7.6.2 Classes of Changes to a Recommendation
  #  7.7 Rescinding a W3C Recommendation
  #  Good practices

Proposed Outline:
  | General Publication Requirements
  | Technical Report Types
  |   Notes vs. Recommendations
  |   Maturity Levels
  | Review Responsibilities
  |   Wide Review
  |   Implementation Experience
  |   Classes of Changes / Substantive Changes [merge]
  | General Transition Requirements
  | Recommendation Track
  |   Working Draft
  |     First Public Working Draft
  |     Revising Working Drafts
  |   Candidate Recommendation
  |     Transitioning to Candidate Recommendation
  |     Revising Candidate Recommendations
  |   Recommendation
  |     Transitioning to Recommendation
  |     Revising Recommendations
  | Note Track
  |   Working Draft [refer to section above for steps; here for parallelism]
  |   Group Note
  | Ending Work on a Technical Report
  |   Abandoning a Technical Report
  |   Rescinding a Recommendation
  | Further Reading

What am I doing here?
   * shor section titles; some of them are awkwardly long
   * Defining Note vs. Recommendation up front before we start talking
     about how to get there, so you know what you're trying to get *to*
     while you're reading how to get there.
   * Putting together all review requirements. Note that implementation
     experience is a type of review, as far as we're concerned here.
   * Combining Classes of Changes to a Recommendation with Substantive
     Changes, because they're both trying to describe the same thing,
     except the former has a finer breakdown.
   * Creating parallel tracks for Note and Rec in the document structure
   * Making keeping a Recommendation up-to-date a core part of the process,
     which it should be. Similarly added a section on revising a CR to
     parallel revising WDs and RECs.

Comments on the proposal or its intentions welcome. If people think
this is a worthwhile endeavor, I will start to put together exact
changes. I think this gives a better structure to support other
editorial improvements to the document.

~fantasai

Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 04:46:26 UTC