- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 09:44:40 -0500
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
On May 7, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > On 07/05/2013 16:22 , Richard Ishida wrote: >> Scratch [4]. Looks like you need to choose FPWD, rather than FPWD-NOTE, >> and set noRecTrack to true. >> >> I'd recommend changing FPWD-NOTE to FPNOTE to make things clearer, if >> that is really what is intended. > > To be honest I have no clue whatsoever what FPWD-NOTE is supposed to do. At some point there was a lot of confusion over the process to publish Notes, and this confusion is supported in the code. I *think* that the correct thing is to remove everything related to Notes that isn't final since those are handled by the WD process. > > I still think that the Note process makes no sense whatsoever, but that's a battle I've given up on :) Notes were used for about everything 20 years ago. Over time we decided to try this model: * There are 2 formal end states for W3C tech reports: Rec and Note. * There are 2 formal start states: WD and Note. (Thus, Note can be both start and end state). * If a group plans to work on a thing that they intend to make a note, they should publish WD, WD, WD, Note. * Of course even something that you think you are done with you may choose to revise later. So a "Note" means "done" in the sense of "at least for now we think we are done." Ian -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 14:44:46 UTC