- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:22:22 -0700
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 8/30/19 8:27 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > +1 to PLH's comments. One nit in-line. > > On 8/30/2019 10:09 AM, Philippe Le Hégaret wrote: >> Overall, I do have to admit that I like this proposal. >> >>> I have a few high-level wishes for the Process: >>> >>> 1. It should enable Working Groups to maintain their /TR specification >>> as the authoritative copy of their spec *in practice*, which means >>> that every edit that represents what the Working Group recommends to >>> implementers is consistently and quickly published to /TR. > > I'm a bit uncomfortable characterizing this as "WG recommends to > implementers". W3C's highest form of endorsement is called a W3C > Recommendation, and I worry that the terminology (recommends to implementers) > sounds a bit too close to W3C Recommendation. W3C shouldn't provide that > level of endorsement since there could still be open Formal Objections at this > stage. I'm using the word "recommend" here in lower-case. :) The point is, if the WG feels that implementers should be referencing a particular text, that text should be the one on /TR. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 30 August 2019 19:22:48 UTC