W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Respec bugs

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 09:44:40 -0500
Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
Message-Id: <1F47B1B3-8F5A-4A15-9F81-3F7CA67DC72F@w3.org>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:18 UTC