Re: W3C Process Intro ("Process 101") (was EOWG: Agenda for 4 August 2006 Teleconference)

The document does explain that a Recommendation is similar to a standard.  
Was that there before? If it was, I missed it. It seems OK as is.

On the other hand, it is relevant to explain that this process applies to  
only a small part of the WCAG 2.0 bundle. Otherwise people may be confused.



-- 
Alan Chuter
Accessibility Consultant
Technosite (formerly Fundosa Teleservicios)
achuter@technosite.es
www.technosite.es
Tel. +34 91 121 03 35


En Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:35:29 +0200, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> escribió:

>
> William & EOWG,
>
> You seem to question the importance of explaining other types of W3C  
> documents in your email[1]. It has been important to clarify that the  
> WCAG 2.0 supporting documents are *not* on the W3C Recommendation track.  
> For example,
> - In the WCAG 2.0 Extension e-mail at:
> 	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2006AprJun/0083.html
> - In the Overview of WCAG 2.0 Documents at:
> 	http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20
> In this version, we just say "(supporting document)", as I thought it  
> not necessary to clarify that "the other supporting documents will be  
> W3C Notes or WAI resources" as I had in previous versions.
>
> Note that I think the only type of W3C WAI documents are:
> 1. W3C Recommendations [formal process for]
> 2. W3C Working Groups Notes [formal process for]
> 2. "WAI Resources" [which includes most of the EOWG deliverables and WAI  
> site pages]
>
> While it may not be important in the "Process 101" doc to explain W3C  
> Notes in detail; it may be good to mention briefly something about not  
> all W3C docs are Recommendations, or that some documents along with W3C  
> Recommendations are not actual Recommendations -- or, specifically under  
> the WAI section that the supporting documents, such as the Techniques,  
> are not W3C Recommendations, or... ?
>
> EOWG: Comments?
> ~ Shawn
>
>
>
> [1] William Loughborough wrote:
>> Shawn Henry wrote:
>>
>>> - I think we probably should include something about Notes; however,  
>>> I'm a little concerned about expanding the document.
>>   If we must explain 'Notes' as well as 'recommendations/standards'  
>> then where do we stop?
>>  Redundancy is imperative on rocket ships to the moon, but not so much  
>> so in an array of similar documents.
>>  Love.
>>
>
>

Received on Friday, 4 August 2006 11:07:21 UTC