Re: [widgets] Proposal to publish Widget Requirements and Widget Landscape docs as Working Group Notes; deadline Sep 23

On 9/19/11 10:54 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
> 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.

PLH says that ideally every spec ends as a WG Note or a Recommendation 
but in practice groups need to consider other factors. In the case of 
the Landscape doc, which was by definition (or at least by title) 
transient, so let's just drop it (and not publish it as a WG Note).

So, the proposal for the Landscape doc is amended: the proposal is to 
formally stop working on the Landscape document and to move it to 
PubStatus' "Specs NO Longer Active" table:

    http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus#Specs_NO_Longer_Active

If anyone objects to that, please reply by September 23 and understand 
that it would mean that you must do the editing work to produce a WG Note.

(The proposal to publish the Requirements doc as WG Note remains unchanged.)

-AB

Received on Monday, 19 September 2011 22:07:48 UTC