- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:54:47 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > FYI, there is some precedence for publishing Requirements docs as > Recommendations (e.g. OWL UCs and Reqs) . If we want to go that route, > it would presumably mean publishing a LC, skipping CR (not applicable > for this spec) and then going to PR and REC. WDYT? Too much "make work"? I think it's "make work" (though I would have argued for this a few years ago). I think we should keep /TR/ for specifications that target user agents. It might also be too controversial to try to push a requirement document to REC independently of the specifications that meet those requirements. > > The landscape document was just created to inform the standardisation process of what was considered best practice at the time. If it's a W3C requirement that it be published as a WG Note, then it should be published as is (i.e., I don't wanna do any work on it unless I really have to). > > I don't feel real strongly here (and I will check with PLH on the > publishing requirements). Publishing a WG Note does make a clear > statement that work on the spec has stopped. We could also update the > SotD which is quite old (e.g. still points to the appformats lists). > [BTW, I would be willing to help with the edits.] Ok, lets see what PLH says. Thanks for your offer of help; it's very much appreciated.
Received on Monday, 19 September 2011 14:55:19 UTC