[Pubrules] Proposed changes regarding references to editors' drafts

Dear Spec-Prod,

In response to an issue raised by Art Barstow [1] I would like to propose some practices and
a few changes to pubrules regarding references to editors' drafts. This is a discussion draft.

This proposal is the result of discussions around publication of "Manifest for web apps and bookmarks" [3].

Ian

P.S. If you are interested in topic of "normative references" see [2]; this proposal does not address that topic.

[1] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/71
[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/

==========
Goals

 * Provide appropriate statements about relationships between a TR draft and an editor's draft.
 * Ensure clarity about editors and ensure they are given credit.
 * Avoid publication delays.
 * Reduce chances publication requests will be declined due to references to editors' drafts.

=================
Proposed Guidance

 * Editor names. In each document (TR draft and editor's draft)
   indicate clearly who is editing the document. The list of editors
   may differ between the documents.

   NOTE: The W3C Process states: "All other W3C editors MUST be
   participants in the group responsible for the document(s) they are
   editing." This applies to W3C technical reports. While it is
   possible for an editor of an editor's draft to not participate in a
   W3C group, it is important to understand any patent policy
   implications.

 * The Marcomm team seeks to balance editor innovation, application of
   W3C process and patent policy requirements, and consistency and
   usefulness for readers. To avoid delays after a publication
   request:

   - Editors who wish to add features to the top of a W3C technical
   report beyond those described in the pubrules templates should
   consult with the Marcomm Team in advance.

   - Team contacts who observe consensus within a WG to publish a FPWG
   should contact the W3C Communications Team to begin to coordinate
   the publication.

 * Here is recommended language for references to an editor's draft
   (for example, from a dismissable popup designed to attract the reader's
   attention).

   - For a Working Draft: "Implementors should be aware that this
   technology is not stable. This draft captures the state of the
   document as of the publication date. The <a>editor's draft</a> may
   include bug fixes and other changes."

   - For a Candidate Recommendation: "Implementors should be aware
   that the feature set for this technology is stable, although the
   details of those features may still change. This draft captures the
   state of the document as of the publication date. The <a>editor's
   draft</a> may include bug fixes and other changes."

   - For a Recommendation: "Implementors should be aware that this is
   a stable document suitable for implementation; please check to see
   if there are any <a>errata</a>. For information about new
   developments related to this technology, see <a>suitable
   reference</a>."

=========================
Proposed Pubrules Changes

 * "Document titles/subtitles MUST NOT include status information or
    otherwise create confusion. For example the document title must not
    include status indicators such as "draft" or "recommendation" or
    "standard".

 * Use these labels in this order to identify resources:
        "This Version"
	"Latest Published Version"
	"Latest Editor's Draft"

 * A document MAY include, near the top, guidance for providing
   feedback. Any such block MUST follow the Editors block. The
   recommended title for this block is "Feedback?"

 * Departures from pubrules expectations for the top of a W3C
   technical report, or text in the status section that may cause
   offense or confusion MUST be approved by the Head of W3C
   Communications.

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2014 22:38:06 UTC