You can not select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
1249 lines
54 KiB
1249 lines
54 KiB
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
|
|
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
|
|
<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<meta name="generator"
|
|
content="HTML Tidy for Linux/x86 (vers 1st March 2002), see www.w3.org" />
|
|
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="style/default.css" type="text/css" />
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/base.css" />
|
|
<title>7 W3C Recommendation Track Process</title>
|
|
<link rel="contents" href="cover.html#toc" />
|
|
<link rel="next" href="acreview.html" />
|
|
<link rel="previous" href="groups.html" />
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<div class="noprint">
|
|
<div class="navbar"><map id="navbar-top" name="navbar-top"
|
|
title="Navigation Bar">
|
|
<p>[<a accesskey="n" rel="Next" href="acreview.html">next chapter</a>]
|
|
[<a accesskey="p" rel="Prev" href="groups.html">previous chapter</a>]
|
|
[<a accesskey="c" rel="Contents" href="cover.html#toc">contents</a>]</p>
|
|
|
|
<hr />
|
|
</map></div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<h1>W3C Process Document</h1>
|
|
|
|
<h2>7 <a id="Reports" name="Reports">W3C Recommendation Track Process</a><a
|
|
id="Recs" name="Recs"></a></h2>
|
|
|
|
<div class="toc">
|
|
<ul class="toc">
|
|
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#maturity-levels" class="tocxref">7.1
|
|
Recommendation Track Process Maturity Levels</a>
|
|
|
|
<ul class="toc">
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#q73" class="tocxref">7.1.1 Maturity Levels When
|
|
Advancing a Technical Report Towards Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#q74" class="tocxref">7.1.2 Maturity Level When
|
|
Ending Work on a Technical Report</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#q75" class="tocxref">7.1.3 Maturity Level When
|
|
Editing a Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#q76" class="tocxref">7.1.4 Maturity Levels When
|
|
Rescinding a Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#transition-reqs" class="tocxref">7.2 General
|
|
Requirements for Advancement</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#doc-reviews" class="tocxref">7.3 Reviews and
|
|
Review Responsibilities</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#rec-advance" class="tocxref">7.4 Advancing a
|
|
Technical Report to Recommendation</a>
|
|
|
|
<ul class="toc">
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#first-wd" class="tocxref">7.4.1 First Public
|
|
Working Draft</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#last-call" class="tocxref">7.4.2 Last Call
|
|
Announcement</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#cfi" class="tocxref">7.4.3 Call for
|
|
Implementations</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#cfr" class="tocxref">7.4.4 Call for Review of a
|
|
Proposed Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#rec-publication" class="tocxref">7.4.5
|
|
Publication of a W3C Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#return-to-wg" class="tocxref">7.4.6 Returning a
|
|
Document to a Working Group for Further Work</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#tr-end" class="tocxref">7.5 Ending Work on a
|
|
Technical Report</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#rec-modify" class="tocxref">7.6 Modifying a W3C
|
|
Recommendation</a>
|
|
|
|
<ul class="toc">
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#errata" class="tocxref">7.6.1 Errata
|
|
Management</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#correction-classes" class="tocxref">7.6.2
|
|
Classes of Changes to a Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#cfr-edited" class="tocxref">7.6.3 Call for
|
|
Review of an Edited Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#cfr-corrections" class="tocxref">7.6.4 Call for
|
|
Review of Proposed Corrections</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#rec-rescind" class="tocxref">7.7 Rescinding a
|
|
W3C Recommendation</a>
|
|
|
|
<ul class="toc">
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#proposed-rescinded-rec" class="tocxref">7.7.1
|
|
Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#publication-rescinded-rec" class="tocxref">7.7.2
|
|
Publication of a Rescinded Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
|
|
<li class="tocline3"><a href="#DocumentsGeneral" class="tocxref">7.8 General
|
|
Information about Technical Reports</a>
|
|
|
|
<ul class="toc">
|
|
<li class="tocline4"><a href="#DocumentStatus" class="tocxref">7.8.1 Document
|
|
Status Section</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<!--NewPage-->
|
|
<!-- this is for html2ps -->
|
|
<p>The Recommendation Track process is the set of steps and requirements
|
|
followed by W3C <a href="groups.html#GroupsWG">Working Groups</a> to
|
|
standardize Web technology. The processes followed by a Working Group to manage
|
|
specifications and guidelines -- called technical reports in this section --
|
|
include:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="#rec-advance">Advancing a technical report</a> from early draft to
|
|
mature deliverable ("Recommendation"). <strong>Note:</strong> People use the
|
|
phrase "on the Recommendation Track" to refer to the process of advancing a
|
|
technical report to Recommendation. In this document, the phrase
|
|
"Recommendation Track process" refers to the larger set of requirements and
|
|
maturity levels described in the following bullets;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#tr-end">Ending work on a technical report</a> before it reaches
|
|
Recommendation, or when not intended to become a Recommendation;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#rec-modify">Modifying a W3C Recommendation</a>;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#rec-rescind">Rescinding a Recommendation</a> no longer endorsed
|
|
by W3C.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>The W3C Recommendation Track process is designed to maximize <a
|
|
href="policies.html#def-Consensus">consensus</a> about the content of a
|
|
technical report, to ensure high technical and editorial quality, and to earn
|
|
endorsement by W3C and the broader community. See also the licensing goals for
|
|
W3C Recommendations in <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-Licensing">section 2</a>
|
|
of the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent
|
|
Policy</a> [<a href="refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The following sections describe:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>the steps of the Recommendation Track process (e.g., "Announcement of Last
|
|
Call" or "Call for Implementations"),</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>the requirements for each step, and</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>the <a href="#maturity-levels">maturity level</a> of a technical report at
|
|
each step (e.g., "Working Draft" or "Candidate Recommendation"). Please note
|
|
that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between steps of the
|
|
Recommendation Track process and maturity levels.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>Maturity levels are described first, followed by the steps on the
|
|
Recommendation Track and the requirements for each step.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>7.1 <a id="maturity-levels" name="maturity-levels">Recommendation Track
|
|
Process Maturity Levels</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>The maturity level of a published technical report indicates its place in
|
|
the Recommendation Track process. The maturity levels "Working Draft" and
|
|
"Working Group Note" represent the possible <a id="tr-init-state"
|
|
name="tr-init-state">initial states</a> of a technical report in the
|
|
Recommendation Track process. The maturity levels "Recommendation", "Working
|
|
Group Note", and "Rescinded Recommendation" represent the possible <a
|
|
id="tr-end-state" name="tr-end-state">end states</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4><a id="q73" name="q73">7.1.1 Maturity Levels When Advancing a Technical
|
|
Report Towards Recommendation</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<dl>
|
|
<dt><a id="RecsWD" name="RecsWD">Working Draft (WD)</a></dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>A Working Draft is a document that W3C has published for review by the
|
|
community, including W3C Members, the public, and other technical
|
|
organizations.</dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt><a id="RecsCR" name="RecsCR">Candidate Recommendation (CR)</a></dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>A Candidate Recommendation is a document that W3C believes has been widely
|
|
reviewed and satisfies the Working Group's technical requirements. W3C
|
|
publishes a Candidate Recommendation to gather implementation experience.</dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt><a id="RecsPR" name="RecsPR">Proposed Recommendation (PR)</a></dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>A Proposed Recommendation is a mature technical report that, after wide
|
|
review for technical soundness and implementability, W3C has sent to the W3C
|
|
Advisory Committee for final endorsement.</dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt><a id="RecsW3C" name="RecsW3C">W3C Recommendation (REC)</a></dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>A W3C Recommendation is a specification or set of guidelines that, after
|
|
extensive consensus-building, has received the endorsement of W3C Members and
|
|
the Director. W3C recommends the wide deployment of its Recommendations.
|
|
<strong>Note:</strong> W3C Recommendations are similar to the standards
|
|
published by other organizations.</dd>
|
|
</dl>
|
|
|
|
<h4><a id="q74" name="q74">7.1.2 Maturity Level When Ending Work on a Technical
|
|
Report</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<dl>
|
|
<dt><a id="WGNote" name="WGNote">Working Group Note</a></dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group to indicate
|
|
that work has ended on a particular topic. A Working Group <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> publish a Working Group Note with or without its
|
|
prior publication as a Working Draft. W3C <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> also
|
|
publish "Interest Group Notes" and "Coordination Group Notes" for similar
|
|
publications by those types of <a href="groups.html#GAGroups">groups</a>.
|
|
Interest Groups and Coordination Groups do not create technical reports that <a
|
|
href="#rec-advance">advance toward Recommendation</a>.</dd>
|
|
|
|
<dd><strong>Note:</strong> To avoid confusion in the developer community and
|
|
the media about which documents represent the output of chartered groups and
|
|
which documents are input to W3C Activities (<a
|
|
href="submission.html#Submission">Member Submissions</a> and <a
|
|
href="organization.html#TeamSubmission">Team Submissions</a>), W3C plans to
|
|
stop using the unqualified maturity level "Note."</dd>
|
|
</dl>
|
|
|
|
<h4><a id="q75" name="q75">7.1.3 Maturity Level When Editing a
|
|
Recommendation</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<dl>
|
|
<dt><a id="ProposedEditedRec" name="ProposedEditedRec">Proposed Edited
|
|
Recommendation</a></dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>A Proposed Edited Recommendation is a Recommendation published for
|
|
community review of <a href="#correction-classes">changes</a>, some of which
|
|
may affect conformance. When there is consensus about the changes, the document
|
|
is published as a Recommendation.</dd>
|
|
</dl>
|
|
|
|
<h4><a id="q76" name="q76">7.1.4 Maturity Levels When Rescinding a
|
|
Recommendation</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<dl>
|
|
<dt><a id="RescindedRec" name="RescindedRec">Rescinded Recommendation</a></dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>A Rescinded Recommendation is an entire Recommendation that W3C no longer
|
|
endorses.</dd>
|
|
</dl>
|
|
|
|
<h3>7.2 <a id="transition-reqs" name="transition-reqs">General Requirements for
|
|
Advancement</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>For a Call for Implementations up to and including publication as a
|
|
Recommendation, the Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>Record the group's decision to request advancement.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Indicate whether the document has been modified substantively since the
|
|
previous step. A <a id="substantive-change"
|
|
name="substantive-change">substantive change</a> (whether deletion, inclusion,
|
|
or other modification) is one where someone could reasonably expect that making
|
|
the change would invalidate an individual's review or implementation
|
|
experience. Other changes (e.g., clarifications, bug fixes, editorial repairs,
|
|
and minor error corrections) are <a id="minor-change" name="minor-change">minor
|
|
changes</a>. A Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> document changes
|
|
(both substantive and minor) between steps.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for this document
|
|
have changed since the previous step.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Report any changes in dependencies with other groups.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Show evidence of wide review.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="policies.html#formal-address">Formally address</a> all issues
|
|
raised about the document since the previous step. In practice, once a Working
|
|
Group wishes to advance to Candidate Recommendation or beyond, the Director
|
|
expects positive documentation that issues have been formally addressed (e.g.,
|
|
in an issues list that shows their disposition). For earlier stages on the
|
|
Recommendation Track, less formal documentation generally suffices (e.g.,
|
|
evidence in an archived mailing list).</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Report any <a href="policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews">formal
|
|
objections</a>.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>The following information is important to the decision to advance a
|
|
technical report and therefore <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> be <a
|
|
href="comm.html#confidentiality-change">publicly available</a>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Details of changes if the technical report has been modified substantively
|
|
since the previous step (e.g., by providing "diffs" and summaries of <a
|
|
href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a>);</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>A statement that requirements have been fulfilled or a listing of
|
|
unfulfilled requirements and the rationale for advancing the document though
|
|
some requirements have not been met.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Evidence of wide review and that dependencies with other groups have been
|
|
resolved;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Responses that <a href="policies.html#formal-address">formally address
|
|
issues</a> raised by reviewers;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Any <a href="policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews">formal
|
|
objections</a>.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h3>7.3 <a id="doc-reviews" name="doc-reviews">Reviews and Review
|
|
Responsibilities</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>Experience shows that the following help build consensus around technical
|
|
reports:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>Frequent publication (see the <a
|
|
href="groups.html#three-month-rule">Working Group "Heartbeat"
|
|
requirement</a>).</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Early review, to find errors quickly and decrease the chances of diverging
|
|
technologies.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Wide review, including from other groups in and outside of W3C.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>A document receives review from the moment it is first published. Starting
|
|
with the First Public Working Draft until the start of a Proposed
|
|
Recommendation review, a Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> <a
|
|
href="policies.html#formal-address">formally address</a> <em>any</em>
|
|
substantive review comment about a technical report and <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> do so in a timely manner. The Director <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> formally address any substantive issue raised by
|
|
Advisory Committee representatives during Proposed Recommendation, Proposed
|
|
Edited Recommendation, and Proposed Rescinded Recommendation review periods.
|
|
The Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> communicate to the Director
|
|
(usually through the Team Contact) any substantive issues raised during
|
|
Proposed Recommendation, Proposed Edited Recommendation, and Proposed Rescinded
|
|
Recommendation review periods by parties other than Advisory Committee
|
|
representatives.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Reviewers <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD NOT</span> send substantive technical
|
|
reviews late on the Recommendation track. Reviewers <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">SHOULD NOT</span> expect that a Working Group will readily make
|
|
<a href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a> to a mature document. The
|
|
more evidence a Working Group can show of wide review, the less weight
|
|
substantive comments will carry when provided late on the Recommendation Track.
|
|
Worthy ideas <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD BE</span> recorded even when not
|
|
incorporated into a mature document.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> be able to show evidence
|
|
of having attempted to respond to and satisfy reviewers. Reviewers <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> register a <a
|
|
href="policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews">formal objection</a> any time they
|
|
are dissatisfied with how a Working Group has handled an issue.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>A Working Group <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> negotiate review
|
|
schedules with other groups expected to review a document, including relevant
|
|
<a href="liaisons.html#Liaisons">liaisons</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>There are two formal review periods with fixed durations when advancing to
|
|
Recommendation: after a Last Call announcement and after a Call for Review of a
|
|
Proposed Recommendation. Out of consideration for the Working Group, reviewers
|
|
<span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> send their comments early in a review
|
|
period. A Working Group <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD NOT</span> start a new
|
|
review before the scheduled end of an ongoing review (e.g., do not start a new
|
|
Last Call review before the scheduled end of an ongoing Last Call review).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Ordinarily, reviewers <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD NOT</span> raise
|
|
substantive technical issues about a technical report after the end of a Last
|
|
Call review period. However, this does occur, and as stated above, a Working
|
|
Group's requirement to formally address those issues extends until the end of a
|
|
Proposed Recommendation review period. However, to allow the Working Group to
|
|
make progress on a technical report, the Working Group <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> decline to make substantive changes to address
|
|
issues raised between the end of a Last Call review period and publication of a
|
|
Recommendation. A reviewer <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> register a <a
|
|
href="policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews">formal objection</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Advisory Committee representatives <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD NOT</span>
|
|
(but <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span>) raise new substantive technical issues
|
|
during a Proposed Recommendation review period. The Director <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> respond to the reviewer after the close of the
|
|
Proposed Recommendation review period. <strong>Note:</strong> It may be
|
|
necessary to <a href="comm.html#confidentiality-change">change confidentiality
|
|
level</a> when conveying issues raised by Advisory Committee representatives to
|
|
the Working Group.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>During review by the Members, the Working Group <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> also <a
|
|
href="policies.html#formal-address">formally address</a> informed and relevant
|
|
issues raised outside the Advisory Committee (e.g., by the public or another
|
|
W3C Working Group), and report them to the Director in a timely fashion.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>When a Working Group receives a substantive issue after the end of Proposed
|
|
Recommendation review period, the Working Group <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> respond to the reviewer but <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> decline to <a
|
|
href="policies.html#formal-address">formally address</a> the issue. In this
|
|
case, the Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> consider the issue as
|
|
part of tracking <a href="#errata">errata</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>7.4 <a id="rec-advance" name="rec-advance">Advancing a Technical Report to
|
|
Recommendation</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>W3C follows these steps when advancing a technical report to
|
|
Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li><a href="#first-wd">Publication of the First Public Working Draft</a>.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#last-call">Last Call announcement</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#cfi">Call for Implementations</a>. <strong>Note:</strong> The
|
|
Director <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> permit the Working Group to skip this
|
|
step if the entrance criteria for the next step have already been
|
|
satisfied.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#cfr">Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation</a>.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><a href="#rec-publication">Publication as a Recommendation</a>.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>In general, Working Groups embark on this journey with the intent of
|
|
publishing one or more Recommendations. However, W3C <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> <a href="#tr-end">end work on a technical report</a>
|
|
at any time, or <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> require a Working Group to
|
|
conduct <a href="#return-to-wg">further work</a>, possibly repeating one or
|
|
more steps.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Between publication of the First Public Working Draft and Last Call
|
|
announcement, a Working Group publishes revisions that generally include
|
|
substantive changes. Between any two steps after a Last Call announcement, the
|
|
Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> publish a new draft of the
|
|
technical report at the same maturity level provided there are no <a
|
|
href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a> since the earlier step.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Team <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> notify the <a
|
|
href="organization.html#AC">Advisory Committee</a> and other W3C groups of a
|
|
revision to a Candidate Recommendation or Proposed Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>These steps of the Recommendation Track process can take considerable time,
|
|
so participants are encouraged to read the <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/2002/05/rec-tips">tips on getting to Recommendation
|
|
faster</a> [<a href="refs.html#ref-rec-tips">PUB27</a>].</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Refer to <a href="/2003/05/Transitions">"How to Organize a Recommendation
|
|
Track Transition"</a> in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/">Member
|
|
guide</a> for practical information about preparing for the reviews and
|
|
announcements of the various steps.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.4.1 <a id="first-wd" name="first-wd">First Public Working Draft</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Document maturity level: <a href="#RecsWD">Working Draft</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Announcement: The Director <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> announce the
|
|
first Working Draft publication to other W3C groups and to the public.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Purpose: The publication of the First Public Working Draft is a signal to
|
|
the community to begin reviewing the document. See <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/#sec-exclusion-with">section
|
|
4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a
|
|
href="refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>] for information about the policy
|
|
implications of the First Public Working Draft.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Entrance criteria: The Chair <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> record the
|
|
group's decision to request advancement. Since this is the first time that a
|
|
document with this short name appears in the Technical Reports index, Director
|
|
approval is <span class="rfc2119">REQUIRED</span> for the transition.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Ongoing work: After publication of the First Public Working Draft, the
|
|
Working Group generally revises the technical report (see the <a
|
|
href="groups.html#three-month-rule">Working Group "Heartbeat" Requirement</a>)
|
|
in accordance with its charter.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In order to make Working Drafts available to a wide audience early in their
|
|
development, the requirements for publication of a Working Draft are limited to
|
|
an agreement by a chartered Working Group to publish the technical report and
|
|
satisfaction of the Team's <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication Rules</a> [<a
|
|
href="refs.html#ref-pubrules">PUB31</a>]. Consensus is not a prerequisite for
|
|
approval to publish; the Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> request
|
|
publication of a Working Draft even if it is unstable and does not meet all
|
|
Working Group requirements.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Working Groups <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> encourage early and wide
|
|
review of the technical report, within and outside of W3C, especially from
|
|
other Working Groups with dependencies on the technical report. Advisory
|
|
Committee representatives <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> encourage review
|
|
within their organizations as early as First Public Working Draft, i.e., before
|
|
a <a href="#last-call">Last Call announcement</a> and <em>well before</em> a <a
|
|
href="#cfr">Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Working Group <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> be responsive to and
|
|
facilitate ongoing review by addressing issues in a timely manner and clearly
|
|
indicating changes between drafts (e.g., by providing "diffs" and summaries of
|
|
<a href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a>).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Forward: <a href="#last-call">Last Call announcement</a>, generally done
|
|
after a series of Working Drafts.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Otherwise: <a href="#tr-end">end work</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.4.2 <a id="last-call" name="last-call">Last Call Announcement</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Document maturity level: <a href="#RecsWD">Working Draft</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Announcement: The Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> announce
|
|
the Last Call to other W3C groups and to the public. A Last Call announcement
|
|
<span class="rfc2119">MUST</span>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>specify the deadline for review comments;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working
|
|
Groups;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>solicit public review.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical
|
|
requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working
|
|
Draft;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies
|
|
with other groups;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>other groups <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> review the document to
|
|
confirm that these dependencies have been satisfied.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>In general, a Last Call announcement is also a signal that the Working Group
|
|
is planning to advance the technical report to later maturity levels.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>A Working Group <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> work with other groups
|
|
prior to a Last Call announcement to reduce the risk of surprise at Last
|
|
Call.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Ideally, after a Last Call announcement, a Working Group receives only
|
|
indications of support for the document, with no proposals for substantive
|
|
change. In practice, Last Call announcements generate comments that sometimes
|
|
result in substantive changes to a document. A Working Group <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">SHOULD NOT</span> assume that it has finished its work by
|
|
virtue of issuing a Last Call announcement.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Entrance criteria: Before announcing a Last Call, the Working Group <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> do all of the following:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>Record the group's decision to request advancement.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Fulfill the relevant requirements of the Working Group charter and those of
|
|
any accompanying requirements documents, or report which relevant requirements
|
|
have not been fulfilled.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Indicate which dependencies with other groups the Working Group believes it
|
|
has satisfied, and report which dependencies have not been satisfied.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> last at least <span class="time-interval">three
|
|
weeks</span> but <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> last longer if the technical
|
|
report is complex or has significant external dependencies.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Ongoing work: During the review period, the Working Group solicits and
|
|
responds to comments from the Team, the Members, other W3C groups, and the
|
|
public.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is important to ensure the proper integration of a technical report in
|
|
the international community. Starting at this step in the Recommendation
|
|
process, the technical report <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> include a
|
|
statement about how the technology relates to existing international standards
|
|
and to related work outside of W3C.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Forward: <a href="#cfi">Call for Implementations</a> or <a href="#cfr">Call
|
|
for Review of a Proposed Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Otherwise: <a href="#return-to-wg">return to Working Group</a> or <a
|
|
href="#tr-end">end work</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.4.3 <a id="cfi" name="cfi">Call for Implementations</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Document maturity level: <a href="#RecsCR">Candidate Recommendation</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Announcement: The Director <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> announce the
|
|
Call for Implementations to the <a href="organization.html#AC">Advisory
|
|
Committee</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Purpose: At this step, W3C believes the technical report is stable and
|
|
appropriate for implementation. The technical report <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> still change based on implementation experience.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Entrance criteria: The Director calls for implementation when satisfied that
|
|
the Working Group has fulfilled the <a href="#transition-reqs">general
|
|
requirements for advancement</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Working Group is <span class="rfc2119">NOT REQUIRED</span> to show that
|
|
a technical report has two independent and interoperable implementations as
|
|
part of a request to the Director to announce a Call for Implementations.
|
|
However, the Working Group <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> include a report
|
|
of present and expected implementations as part of the request.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In the Call for Implementations, the Working Group <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> identify specific features of the technical report
|
|
as being "<a id="at-risk-feature" name="at-risk-feature">features at risk</a>."
|
|
General statements such as "We plan to remove any unimplemented feature" are
|
|
not acceptable; the Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> precisely
|
|
identify any features at risk. Thus, in response to a Call for Implementations,
|
|
reviewers can indicate whether they would <a
|
|
href="policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews">formally object</a> to the removal
|
|
of the identified features.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>After gathering implementation experience, the Working Group <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> remove features from the technical report that were
|
|
identified as being "at risk" and request that the Director <a href="#cfr">Call
|
|
for Review of a Proposed Recommendation</a>. If the Working Group makes other
|
|
<a href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a> to the technical report,
|
|
the Director <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> return it to the Working Group
|
|
for <a href="#return-to-wg">further work</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The request to the Director to advance a technical report to Candidate
|
|
Recommendation <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> indicate whether the Working
|
|
Group expects to satisfy any Proposed Recommendation entrance criteria beyond
|
|
the default requirements (described below).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Advisory Committee representatives <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> <a
|
|
href="acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a> the decision to advance the technical
|
|
report.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Duration of the implementation period: The announcement <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> indicate a minimal duration, before which the
|
|
Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST NOT</span> request a <a
|
|
href="#cfr">Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation</a>; this minimal
|
|
duration is designed to allow time for comment. The announcement <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> also include the Working Group's estimate of the
|
|
time expected to gather sufficient implementation data.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Forward: <a href="#cfr">Call for Review of a Proposed
|
|
Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Otherwise: <a href="#return-to-wg">return to Working Group</a> or <a
|
|
href="#tr-end">end work</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.4.4 <a id="cfr" name="cfr">Call for Review of a Proposed
|
|
Recommendation</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Document maturity level: <a href="#RecsPR">Proposed Recommendation</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Announcement: The Director <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> announce the
|
|
Call for Review to the <a href="organization.html#AC">Advisory
|
|
Committee</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Purpose: At this step, W3C seeks endorsement of the stable technical report.
|
|
The outcome of this review is taken as an indication of the organization's
|
|
support for the technical report.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Entrance criteria: The Director calls for review when satisfied that the
|
|
Working Group has:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>Fulfilled the <a href="#transition-reqs">general requirements for
|
|
advancement</a>;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Shown that each feature of the technical report has been implemented.
|
|
Preferably, the Working Group <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> be able to
|
|
demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature. If the Director
|
|
believes that immediate Advisory Committee review is critical to the success of
|
|
a technical report, the Director <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> accept to
|
|
Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation even without adequate
|
|
implementation experience;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Satisfied any other announced entrance criteria (e.g., any included in the
|
|
request to advance to Candidate Recommendation, or announced at Last Call if
|
|
the Working Group does not intend to issue a Call for Implementations).</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>Advisory Committee representatives <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> <a
|
|
href="acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a> the decision to advance the technical
|
|
report.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> last at least <span class="time-interval">four
|
|
weeks</span>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Ongoing work: During the review period, the Working Group requests
|
|
endorsement and support from Members (e.g., testimonials as part of a press
|
|
release).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Forward: Publication as a <a href="#rec-publication">W3C
|
|
Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Otherwise: <a href="#cfi">Call for Implementations</a> if there are
|
|
questions related to implementation, <a href="#return-to-wg">return to Working
|
|
Group</a> or <a href="#tr-end">end work</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.4.5 <a id="rec-publication" name="rec-publication">Publication of a W3C
|
|
Recommendation</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Document maturity level: <a href="#RecsW3C">Recommendation</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Announcement: The Director <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> announce the
|
|
publication of a W3C Recommendation to the <a
|
|
href="organization.html#AC">Advisory Committee</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Purpose: W3C publishes Recommendations when it believes that the ideas in
|
|
the technical report are appropriate for widespread deployment and that they
|
|
promote <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/">W3C's mission</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Entrance criteria: The Director publishes a W3C Recommendation when
|
|
satisfied that there is significant support for the technical report from the
|
|
Advisory Committee, the Team, W3C Working Groups, and the public. The decision
|
|
to advance a document to Recommendation is a <a
|
|
href="acreview.html#def-w3c-decision">W3C decision</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>If there was any <a href="policies.html#def-Dissent">dissent</a> during the
|
|
Member review, Advisory Committee representatives <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> <a href="acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a> the
|
|
decision to publish the Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>End state: A technical report <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> remain a
|
|
Recommendation indefinitely</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Otherwise: <a href="#rec-modify">Modification of a Recommendation</a> or <a
|
|
href="#rec-rescind">Rescinding a Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Director <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> submit a W3C Recommendation to
|
|
another standards body for adoption and formal approval by that body.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.4.6 <a id="return-to-wg" name="return-to-wg">Returning a Document to a
|
|
Working Group for Further Work</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>A technical report is returned to a Working Group for further work in either
|
|
of the following situations:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>The Working Group makes <a href="#substantive-change">substantive
|
|
changes</a> to the technical report at any time after a <a
|
|
href="#last-call">Last Call announcement</a> and prior to <a
|
|
href="#rec-publication">Publication as a Recommendation</a>,
|
|
<strong>except</strong> when the changes involve the removal of <a
|
|
href="#at-risk-feature">features at risk</a> identified in a <a
|
|
href="#cfi">Call for Implementations</a>. In the case of substantive changes,
|
|
the Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> republish the technical
|
|
report as a Working Draft.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>The Director requires the Working Group to address important issues raised
|
|
during a review or as the result of implementation experience. In this case,
|
|
Director <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> request that the Working Group
|
|
republish the technical report as a Working Draft, even if the Working Group
|
|
has not made <a href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a>.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Director <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> inform the <a
|
|
href="organization.html#AC">Advisory Committee</a> and group Chairs when a
|
|
technical report has been returned to a Working Group for further work.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>After republication as a Working Draft, the next forward step available to
|
|
the Working Group is a <a href="#last-call">Last Call announcement</a>. The
|
|
Last Call announcement <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> occur at the same time
|
|
as the publication of the Working Draft.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Director <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> ask the Working Group to
|
|
republish a technical report as a Candidate Recommendation. At the same time as
|
|
publication, the Director issues a <a href="#cfi">Call for
|
|
Implementations</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>7.5 <a id="tr-end" name="tr-end">Ending Work on a Technical Report</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>Work on a technical report <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> cease at any
|
|
time. When a Working Group completes its work on a technical report, it
|
|
publishes it either as a Recommendation or a Working Group Note. For example, a
|
|
Working Group might publish several Working Drafts of a requirements document,
|
|
and then indicate that it no longer plans to work on the requirements document
|
|
by publishing a Working Group Note.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Work <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> also cease because W3C determines that
|
|
it cannot productively carry the work any further. For instance, the Director
|
|
might <a href="groups.html#GeneralTermination">close a Working Group</a>, the
|
|
participants might lose interest in a technical report, or the ideas might be
|
|
subsumed by another technical report. If W3C decides to discontinue work on a
|
|
technical report before completion, the technical report <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> be published as a Working Group Note.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>End state: A technical report <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> remain a
|
|
Working Group Note indefinitely</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Otherwise: A Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> resume work on
|
|
the technical report as a Working Draft</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h3>7.6 <a id="rec-modify" name="rec-modify">Modifying a W3C
|
|
Recommendation</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>W3C makes every effort to maintain its Recommendations (e.g., by tracking
|
|
errata, providing test-bed applications, and helping to create test suites) and
|
|
to encourage widespread implementation. The following sections discuss the
|
|
management of errors and the process for making normative changes to a
|
|
Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.6.1 <a id="errata" name="errata">Errata Management</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Tracking errors is an important part of a Working Group's ongoing care of a
|
|
Recommendation; for this reason, the scope of a Working Group charter generally
|
|
allows time for work after publication of a Recommendation. In this Process
|
|
Document, the term "erratum" (plural "errata") refers to any class of mistake,
|
|
from mere editorial to a serious error that may affect the conformance with the
|
|
Recommendation by software or content (e.g., content validity).
|
|
<strong>Note:</strong> Before a document becomes a Recommendation, the W3C
|
|
Process focuses on <a href="#substantive-change">substantive changes</a> (those
|
|
related to prior reviews). After a document has been published as
|
|
Recommendation, the W3C Process focuses on those changes to a technical report
|
|
that might affect the conformance of content or deployed software.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Working Groups <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> track errata on an "errata
|
|
page." An errata page is a list of enumerated errors, possibly accompanied by
|
|
corrections. Each Recommendation links to an errata page; see the Team's <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication Rules</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>A correction is first "proposed" by the Working Group. A correction becomes
|
|
normative -- of equal status as the text in the published Recommendation --
|
|
through one of the processes described below. An errata page <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> include both proposed and normative corrections. The
|
|
Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> clearly identify which
|
|
corrections are proposed and which are normative.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>A Working Group <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> keep their errata pages
|
|
up-to-date, as errors are reported by readers and implementers. A Working Group
|
|
<span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> report errata page changes to interested
|
|
parties, notably when corrections are proposed or become normative, according
|
|
to the Team's requirements. For instance, the Team might set up a mailing list
|
|
per Recommendation where a Working Group reports changes to an errata page.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.6.2 <a id="correction-classes" name="correction-classes">Classes of
|
|
Changes to a Recommendation</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>This document distinguishes the following classes of changes to a
|
|
Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<dl>
|
|
<dt>1. No changes to text content</dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>These changes include fixing broken links or invalid markup.</dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt>2. Corrections that do not affect conformance</dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the technical
|
|
content of the specification.</dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt>3. Corrections that <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> affect conformance,
|
|
but add no new features</dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>These changes <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> affect conformance to the
|
|
Recommendation. A change that affects conformance is one that:
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>turns conforming data, processors, or other conforming agents into
|
|
non-conforming agents, or</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>turns non-conforming agents into conforming ones, or</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>clears up an ambiguity or under-specified part of the specification in such
|
|
a way that an agent whose conformance was once unclear becomes clearly
|
|
conforming or non-conforming.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
</dd>
|
|
|
|
<dt>4. New features</dt>
|
|
|
|
<dd>For new features, W3C follows the full process of <a
|
|
href="#rec-advance">advancing a technical report to Recommendation</a>.</dd>
|
|
</dl>
|
|
|
|
<p>The first two classes of change require no technical review of the proposed
|
|
changes, although a Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> issue a Call
|
|
for Review. The modified Recommendation is published according to the Team's
|
|
requirements, including <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication
|
|
Rules</a> [<a href="refs.html#ref-pubrules">PUB31</a>].</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>For the third class of change, W3C requires:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>Review by the community to ensure the technical soundness of proposed
|
|
corrections.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Timely publication of the edited Recommendation, with corrections
|
|
incorporated.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>For the third class of change, the Working Group <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> either:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>Request that the Director issue a <a href="#cfr-edited">Call for Review of
|
|
an Edited Recommendation</a>, or</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Issue a <a href="#cfr-corrections">Call for Review of Proposed
|
|
Corrections</a> that have not been incorporated into an edited draft (e.g.,
|
|
those listed on an errata page). After this review, the Director <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MAY</span> announce that the proposed corrections are
|
|
normative.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>While the second approach is designed so that a Working Group can establish
|
|
normative corrections quickly, it does not obviate the need to incorporate
|
|
changes into an edited version of the Recommendation. In particular, when
|
|
corrections are numerous or complex, integrating them into a single document is
|
|
important for interoperability; readers might otherwise interpret the
|
|
corrections differently.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.6.3 <a id="cfr-edited" name="cfr-edited">Call for Review of an Edited
|
|
Recommendation</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Document maturity level: <a href="#ProposedEditedRec">Proposed Edited
|
|
Recommendation</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Announcement: The Director <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> announce the
|
|
Call for Review to other W3C groups, the public, and the <a
|
|
href="organization.html#AC">Advisory Committee</a>. The announcement <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> clearly indicate that this is a proposal to edit a
|
|
Recommendation and <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>specify the deadline for review comments;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working
|
|
Groups;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>solicit public review.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>Purpose: At this step, W3C seeks confirmation of proposed corrections to a
|
|
Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Entrance criteria: The Director calls for review when satisfied that, with
|
|
respect to changes to the document, the Working Group has fulfilled the same
|
|
entrance criteria as for a <a href="#cfr">Call for Review of a Proposed
|
|
Recommendation</a> (e.g., the Working Group can show implementation experience
|
|
that supports the changes). In the request to advance to this status, the
|
|
Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> report any substantive issues
|
|
about the technical report that have not been resolved.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Advisory Committee representatives <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> <a
|
|
href="acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a> the decision to advance the technical
|
|
report.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Duration of the review: The announcement begins a formal Advisory Committee
|
|
review period that <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> last at least <span
|
|
class="time-interval">four weeks</span>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Ongoing work: During the review period, the Working Group solicits and
|
|
responds to comments from the Team, the Members, other W3C groups, and the
|
|
public.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Forward: <a href="#rec-publication">Publication of a W3C
|
|
Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Otherwise, the Recommendation remains unchanged and two steps are possible:
|
|
<a href="#return-to-wg">return to Working Group</a> or <a href="#tr-end">end
|
|
work</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.6.4 <a id="cfr-corrections" name="cfr-corrections">Call for Review of
|
|
Proposed Corrections</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Document maturity level: A Recommendation, plus a list of proposed
|
|
corrections. The Working Group <span class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> also include
|
|
a detailed description of how the Working Group plans to change the text of the
|
|
Recommendation for each proposed correction.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Announcement: The Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> announce
|
|
the Call for Review to other W3C groups, the public, and the <a
|
|
href="organization.html#AC">Advisory Committee</a>. This is not a formal <a
|
|
href="acreview.html#ACReview">Advisory Committee review</a>. However, the
|
|
announcement <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> clearly indicate that this is a
|
|
proposal to make normative corrections to the Recommendation and <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>specify the deadline for review comments;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working
|
|
Groups;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>solicit public review.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>Purpose: At this step, W3C seeks confirmation of proposed corrections to a
|
|
Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Entrance criteria: The Working Group calls for review when, with respect to
|
|
changes to the document, the group has fulfilled the same entrance criteria as
|
|
for a <a href="#cfr">Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> last at least <span class="time-interval">four
|
|
weeks</span>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Ongoing work: Same as for a <a href="#cfr-edited">Proposed Edited
|
|
Recommendation</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>If there are no <a href="policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews">formal
|
|
objections</a> to the proposed corrections, W3C considers them normative. The
|
|
Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> report formal objections to the
|
|
Director, who assesses whether there is sufficient consensus to declare the
|
|
proposed corrections to be normative.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Forward: <a href="#rec-publication">Publication of a W3C
|
|
Recommendation</a>. In order for the corrections to remain normative, the
|
|
Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> incorporate them into an edited
|
|
Recommendation. The Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> publish the
|
|
revised Recommendation within <span class="time-interval">six months</span>
|
|
after the end of the review or secure an extension from the Director. Prior to
|
|
publication, if the Working Group makes further changes to the technical report
|
|
that affect conformance, the Working Group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span>
|
|
request a <a href="#cfr-edited">Call for Review of an Edited
|
|
Recommendation</a>.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Otherwise: The Recommendation remains unchanged and two steps are possible:
|
|
<a href="#return-to-wg">return to Working Group</a> or <a href="#tr-end">end
|
|
work</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h3>7.7 <a id="rec-rescind" name="rec-rescind">Rescinding a W3C
|
|
Recommendation</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>At times, W3C <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> rescind an entire
|
|
Recommendation, for instance when W3C learns of significant errors in the
|
|
Recommendation, when the Recommendation becomes outdated, or if W3C discovers
|
|
burdensome patent claims that affect implementers; see the <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C Patent Policy</a> [<a
|
|
href="refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>] and in particular <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-Requirements">section
|
|
5</a> (bullet 10) and <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy#sec-PAG-conclude">section
|
|
7.5</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>To deprecate <em>part</em> of a Recommendation, W3C follows the process for
|
|
<a href="#rec-modify">modifying a Recommendation</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical
|
|
reports <span class="rfc2119">MUST NOT</span> include normative references to
|
|
that technical report.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.7.1 <a id="proposed-rescinded-rec" name="proposed-rescinded-rec">Proposal
|
|
to Rescind a Recommendation</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Document maturity level: Recommendation, plus separate rationale for the
|
|
proposal to rescind.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Announcement: The Director <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> announce the
|
|
Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation to other W3C groups, the public, and the
|
|
<a href="organization.html#AC">Advisory Committee</a>. The announcement <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> clearly indicate that this is a Proposal to Rescind
|
|
a Recommendation and <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span>:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>specify the deadline for review comments;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working
|
|
Groups;</li>
|
|
|
|
<li>solicit public review.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
|
|
<p>Purpose: At this step, W3C seeks confirmation of a Proposal to Rescind a
|
|
Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Entrance criteria: The Director proposes that W3C rescind a Recommendation
|
|
when satisfied that there is sufficient reason.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Advisory Committee representatives <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> <a
|
|
href="acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a> the Proposal to Rescind the
|
|
Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> last at least <span class="time-interval">four
|
|
weeks</span>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Ongoing work: During the review period, the Working Group solicits and
|
|
responds to comments from the Team, the Members, other W3C groups, and the
|
|
public.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Forward: <a href="#publication-rescinded-rec">Publication of a Rescinded
|
|
Recommendation</a></li>
|
|
|
|
<li>Otherwise: The Recommendation remains unchanged and two steps are possible:
|
|
<a href="#return-to-wg">return to Working Group</a> or <a href="#tr-end">end
|
|
work</a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.7.2 <a id="publication-rescinded-rec"
|
|
name="publication-rescinded-rec">Publication of a Rescinded
|
|
Recommendation</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Document maturity level: <a href="#RescindedRec">Rescinded
|
|
Recommendation</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Announcement: The Director <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> announce the
|
|
Publication of a Rescinded Recommendation to the <a
|
|
href="organization.html#AC">Advisory Committee</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Purpose: At this step, W3C indicates that it no longer endorses a previously
|
|
published Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Entrance criteria: The Director publishes a Rescinded Recommendation when
|
|
satisfied that there is significant support from the Advisory Committee, the
|
|
Team, W3C Working Groups, and the public. The decision to advance a document to
|
|
Rescinded Recommendation is a <a href="acreview.html#def-w3c-decision">W3C
|
|
decision</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Team <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> publish one or more documents in
|
|
order to best communicate what has been rescinded and its relation to previous
|
|
Recommendations (e.g., the publication can be as simple as a cover sheet that
|
|
refers to a previously published Recommendation).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>If there was any <a href="policies.html#def-Dissent">dissent</a> in the
|
|
Proposed Rescinded Recommendation reviews, Advisory Committee representatives
|
|
<span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> <a href="acreview.html#ACAppeal">appeal</a>
|
|
the decision to rescind the Recommendation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Possible next step:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>End state: A technical report <span class="rfc2119">MAY</span> remain a
|
|
Rescinded Recommendation indefinitely</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h3>7.8 <a id="DocumentsGeneral" name="DocumentsGeneral">General Information
|
|
about Technical Reports</a></h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>Every document published as part of the Recommendation Track process <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> be a public document. The <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/">index of W3C technical reports</a> [<a
|
|
href="refs.html#ref-doc-list">PUB11</a>] is available at the W3C Web site. W3C
|
|
will make every effort to make archival documents indefinitely available at
|
|
their original address in their original form.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Every document published as part of the Recommendation Track process <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">MUST</span> clearly indicate its <a
|
|
href="#maturity-levels">maturity level</a>.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Every technical report published as part of the Recommendation Track process
|
|
is edited by one or more editors appointed by a Working Group Chair. It is the
|
|
responsibility of these editors to ensure that the decisions of the group are
|
|
correctly reflected in subsequent drafts of the technical report. An Editor for
|
|
the TAG or Advisory Board who is not an elected or appointed participant in
|
|
that group <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> fulfill the same participation
|
|
requirements for that group, as a Member representative, Team representative,
|
|
or Invited Expert. All other W3C Editors <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> be
|
|
participants in the group responsible for the document(s) they are editing.
|
|
Note that an Editor is <span class="rfc2119">NOT REQUIRED</span> to be a Team
|
|
representative.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Team is <span class="rfc2119">NOT REQUIRED</span> to publish a technical
|
|
report that does not conform to the Team's <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication Rules</a> (e.g., for <a
|
|
id="DocumentName" name="DocumentName">naming</a>, style, and <a
|
|
id="document-copyright" name="document-copyright">copyright requirements</a>).
|
|
These rules are subject to change. The Team <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span>
|
|
inform group Chairs and the Advisory Board of any changes.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Team reserves the right to reformat technical reports at any time so as
|
|
to conform to changes in W3C practice (e.g., changes to technical report styles
|
|
or the <a href="#DocumentStatus">document status section</a>).</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The primary language for W3C technical reports is English. W3C encourages
|
|
the translation of its technical reports. <a
|
|
href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Translation/">Information about translations
|
|
of W3C technical reports</a> [<a href="refs.html#ref-translations">PUB18</a>]
|
|
is available at the W3C Web site.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>7.8.1 <a id="DocumentStatus" name="DocumentStatus">Document Status
|
|
Section</a></h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Each technical report <span class="rfc2119">MUST</span> include a section
|
|
about the status of the document. The status section <span
|
|
class="rfc2119">SHOULD</span> explain why W3C has published the technical
|
|
report, expectations about next steps, who developed it, where to send comments
|
|
about it, whether implementation experience is being sought, any significant
|
|
changes from the previous version, why work on the technical report has ceased
|
|
or been subsumed, and any other relevant information or rationale.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The Team's <a href="http://www.w3.org/Guide/pubrules">Publication Rules</a>
|
|
include status section requirements for each maturity level.</p>
|
|
|
|
<div class="noprint">
|
|
<div class="navbar"><map id="navbar-bottom" name="navbar-bottom"
|
|
title="Navigation Bar">
|
|
<hr />
|
|
<p>[<a accesskey="n" rel="Next" href="acreview.html">next chapter</a>]
|
|
[<a accesskey="p" rel="Prev" href="groups.html">previous chapter</a>]
|
|
[<a accesskey="c" rel="Contents" href="cover.html#toc">contents</a>]</p>
|
|
</map></div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|
|
|