- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:11:17 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 10/31/2013 04:30 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > > My vote on the issues you raise above would be to move this entire > section to a separate `TR publication process` type document with musts, > suggestions, best practices, etc. that can be easily updated if/when the > tide changes, as well as give the producers of the doc some flexibility. +1 I would love for publication requirements to be a separate doc. Particularly as I would like to completely overhaul the spec template sometime soon. :) ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 21:11:45 UTC