HTTP/2 200
date: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 20:23:19 GMT
content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8
content-encoding: gzip
content-location: fbff0fa7f073.html
vary: negotiate,Accept-Encoding
tcn: choice
strict-transport-security: max-age=63072000
content-security-policy: upgrade-insecure-requests;
last-modified: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 09:34:16 GMT
cache-control: public, max-age=2592000, s-maxage=2592000
cf-cache-status: HIT
set-cookie: __cf_bm=mx47XzxicrGgAGzRESXEjoOdBXrxd0dQop0XK45XKAY-1759954999-1.0.1.1-S_bKOQrL2As0VtT06S87MghPe5j6gWTtZ21OEwgAEHF.gFR6B0GuCI_4QUmazRR39FnaiCmVIhfLjIuROLLhHiJCLF05jmbLth_98IFq1Rs; path=/; expires=Wed, 08-Oct-25 20:53:19 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98b85af76be6860e-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
More editorial cleanup. Ready to push draft today.
--- a/tr.html Mon Jan 20 15:40:51 2014 +0100
+++ b/tr.html Wed Jan 22 12:53:23 2014 +0100
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
height="48" width="72"></a> </p>
<h1 class="title" id="title">Recommendation Track Process draft proposal</h1>
<h2 id="draft-shorthand-status"><abbr title="World Wide Web Consortium"></abbr>Editors'
- Draft 20 January 2014</h2>
+ Draft 22 January 2014</h2>
<dl>
<dt>Current active version:</dt>
<dd><a href="https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html">https://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html</a></dd>
@@ -87,31 +87,35 @@
Lifecycle (chapter 7)</a>"</p>
Major changes:
<ul>
- <li>There is a requirement that Working groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
- document known implementation for all transitions</li>
- <li>Implementation requirements are not simply listed as "2
- interoperable implementations", instead a new sections gives
- guidance on what is considered when assessing "<a href="#implementation-experience">adequate
- implementation experience</a>".</li>
+ <li>New requirements that Working groups <em class="rfc2119">should</em>
+ document known implementation and expected next steps for all
+ transitions</li>
+ <li>If W3C closes a Working Group, they <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
+ republish its unfinished work as Notes. </li>
+ <li>Implementation requirements for passing beyond Candidate Recommendation
+ are not simply listed as "2 interoperable implementations", instead
+ a new sections gives guidance on what is considered when assessing "<a
+ href="#implementation-experience">adequate implementation
+ experience</a>".</li>
<li>Instead of relying on a Last Call publication for adequate review
there is a requirement for a Working Group to demonstrate "<a href="#wide-review">wide
- review</a>", leaving them to implement review processes as they
- see fit.</li>
+ review</a>", while leaving them to achieve this as they see fit.</li>
<li>Last Call and Candidate Recommendation have been collapsed
together. Some of the requirements are therefore enforced earlier in
the process.</li>
<li>There is a stronger emphasis (without creating new formal
requirements) on getting review and testing implementation as early
as possible. How to do this is left to Working Groups to determine.</li>
- <li>Proposed Recommendation is no longer a separate step. Advisory
- Committee review now begins at the same time as Candidate
+ <li>Proposed Recommendation is no longer a separate step. (This may be
+ reversed, per <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84">ISSUE-84</a>)</li>
+ <li>Advisory Committee review now begins at the same time as Candidate
recommendation, and ends 4 weeks after the Working group has
provisional approval for a Request to publish as a W3C
- Recommendation. (This may be reversed, per <a href="https://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/84">ISSUE-84</a>)</li>
- <li>If W3C closes a Working Group, they <em class="rfc2119">must</em>
- republish its unfinished work as Notes. </li>
+ Recommendation. </li>
<li>The Director is required to address AC review comments <strong>publicly</strong>,
2 weeks <em>before</em> publication of a Recommendation.</li>
+ <li>Errata cannot be made normative except by republishing a
+ Recommendation or a Revised Recommendation</li>
<li>And it is in HTML5</li>
</ul>
<p>Editorially, I have tried to rationalize requirements and clarify who
@@ -680,9 +684,8 @@
explain the reasons for that decision. </span></li>
</ul>
<p>Possible next steps:</p>
+ <p>A W3C Recommendation normally retains its status indefinitely. However it</p>
<ul>
- <li>A W3C Recommendation normally retains its status indefinitely. However
- it</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> be <a href="#rec-modify">republished as
an Edited Recommendation</a>, or</li>
<li><em class="rfc2119">may</em> be <a href="#rec-rescind">rescinded</a>.</li>