- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:07:15 -0600
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 11:54 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:32:21 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:36:21 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> > > wrote: > >> On Dec 15, 2009, at 3:00 PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > >> > >>> [...] endorse the proposed disposition of HTML WG issue-59 in > >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0249.html , > >>> i.e. > >>> the class=author view and the informative reference guide, provided the > >>> relaxng is appended to the informative reference guide, which will be > >>> published as a Working Draft and taken to Last Call [...] > >> > >> I don't think I can commit on behalf of the Working Group to publish > >> the document as Last Call, nor do I think the Working Group itself can > >> credibly pre-commit to that step. [...] > > > > Non-normative documents are published as WG Note, not as Last Call > > documents. Those aren't exclusive; i.e. you can do a Last Call before a Note. Precedent: "This is the Last Call for the requirements Working Draft of the XML Key Management Working Group (Activity Statement). This version represents the consensus of the Working Group." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xkms2-req-20020318 followed by http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-xkms2-req-20030505 > Apparently there is plenty of precedence for publishing them as W3C REC in > the end (e.g. RDF and OWL primers). Forgot about that. Not sure whether it > is worth it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 4 January 2010 19:07:19 UTC