- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:41:12 -0400
- To: "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
- CC: public-w3process <public-w3process@w3.org>
[ Cc: public-w3process since that's where Issue-71 is filed ] On 4/3/14 6:38 PM, ext Ian Jacobs wrote: > [1] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/71 > > - 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. I agree with Marcos that groups should have lots of freedom to add other data <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2014AprJun/0002.html>. I also think related debate/discussions should have some transparency so this should be changed to something like s/Marcomm Team/@TBD archived mail list/. > - 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." Besides needing to s/technology/specification/, I think this is too weak. I prefer something much stronger such as is done in The WebSocket API: [[ <http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/#status-of-this-document> Implementors should be aware that this specification is not stable.*Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible ways.*Vendors interested in implementing this specification before it eventually reaches the Candidate Recommendation stage should join the aforementioned mailing lists and take part in the discussions. ]] -AB
Received on Monday, 7 April 2014 14:42:30 UTC