W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > April 2014

Re: [Pubrules] Proposed changes regarding references to editors' drafts

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:41:12 -0400
Message-ID: <5342B908.1030106@nokia.com>
To: "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
CC: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
[ Cc: public-w3process since that's where Issue-71 is filed ]

On 4/3/14 6:38 PM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote:
> [1] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/71
>     - Editors who wish to add features to the top of a W3C technical
>     report beyond those described in the pubrules templates should
>     consult with the Marcomm Team in advance.

I agree with Marcos that groups should have lots of freedom to add other 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2014AprJun/0002.html>. I 
also think related debate/discussions should have some transparency so 
this should be changed to something like s/Marcomm Team/@TBD archived 
mail list/.

>     - For a Working Draft: "Implementors should be aware that this
>     technology is not stable. This draft captures the state of the
>     document as of the publication date. The <a>editor's draft</a> may
>     include bug fixes and other changes."

Besides needing to s/technology/specification/, I think this is too 
weak. I prefer something much stronger such as is done in The WebSocket API:


Implementors should be aware that this specification is not 
stable.*Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are 
likely to find the specification changing out from under them in 
incompatible ways.*Vendors interested in implementing this specification 
before it eventually reaches the Candidate Recommendation stage should 
join the aforementioned mailing lists and take part in the discussions.

Received on Monday, 7 April 2014 14:42:31 UTC

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