7 W3C Recommendation Track Process

7 W3C Recommendation Track Process
next chapter
previous chapter
contents
On 1 August 2014, W3C began a
transition
away from this document; see the
current W3C Process Document
W3C Process Document
W3C Recommendation Track Process
7.1
Recommendation Track Process Maturity Levels
7.1.1 Maturity Levels When
Advancing a Technical Report Towards Recommendation
7.1.2 Maturity Level When
Ending Work on a Technical Report
7.1.3 Maturity Level When
Editing a Recommendation
7.1.4 Maturity Levels When
Rescinding a Recommendation
7.2 General
Requirements for Advancement
7.3 Reviews and
Review Responsibilities
7.4 Advancing a
Technical Report to Recommendation
7.4.1 First Public
Working Draft
7.4.2 Last Call
Announcement
7.4.3 Call for
Implementations
7.4.4 Call for Review of a
Proposed Recommendation
7.4.5
Publication of a W3C Recommendation
7.4.6 Returning a
Document to a Working Group for Further Work
7.5 Ending Work on a
Technical Report
7.6 Modifying a W3C
Recommendation
7.6.1 Errata
Management
7.6.2
Classes of Changes to a Recommendation
7.6.3 Call for
Review of an Edited Recommendation
7.6.4 Call for
Review of Proposed Corrections
7.7 Rescinding a
W3C Recommendation
7.7.1
Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation
7.7.2
Publication of a Rescinded Recommendation
7.8 General
Information about Technical Reports
7.8.1 Document
Status Section
The Recommendation Track process is the set of steps and requirements
followed by W3C
Working Groups
to
standardize Web technology. The processes followed by a Working Group to manage
specifications and guidelines -- called technical reports in this section --
include:
Advancing a technical report
from early draft to
mature deliverable ("Recommendation").
Note:
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;
Ending work on a technical report
before it reaches
Recommendation, or when not intended to become a Recommendation;
Modifying a W3C Recommendation
Rescinding a Recommendation
no longer endorsed
by W3C;
The W3C Recommendation Track process is designed to maximize
consensus
about the content of a
technical report, to ensure high technical and editorial quality, and to earn
endorsement by W3C and the broader community.
The following sections describe:
the steps of the Recommendation Track process (e.g., "Announcement of Last
Call" or "Call for Implementations"),
the requirements for each step, and
the
maturity level
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.
Maturity levels are described first, followed by the steps on the
Recommendation Track and the requirements for each step.
7.1
Recommendation Track
Process Maturity Levels
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
initial states
of a technical report in the
Recommendation Track process. The maturity levels "Recommendation", "Working
Group Note", and "Rescinded Recommendation" represent the possible
end states
7.1.1 Maturity Levels When Advancing a Technical
Report Towards Recommendation
Working Draft (WD)
A Working Draft is a document that W3C has published for review by the
community, including W3C Members, the public, and other technical
organizations.
Candidate Recommendation (CR)
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.
Proposed Recommendation (PR)
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.
W3C Recommendation (REC)
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.
Note:
W3C Recommendations are similar to the standards
published by other organizations.
7.1.2 Maturity Level When Ending Work on a Technical
Report
Working Group Note
A Working Group Note is published by a chartered Working Group to indicate
that work has ended on a particular topic. A Working Group
MAY
publish a Working Group Note with or without its
prior publication as a Working Draft. W3C
MAY
also
publish "Interest Group Notes" and "Coordination Group Notes" for similar
publications by those types of
groups
Interest Groups and Coordination Groups do not create technical reports that
advance toward Recommendation
Note:
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 (
Member Submissions
and
Team Submissions
), W3C plans to
stop using the unqualified maturity level "Note."
7.1.3 Maturity Level When Editing a
Recommendation
Proposed Edited
Recommendation
A Proposed Edited Recommendation is a technical report that W3C has
published for community review of important
changes
, some of which may affect conformance.
When there is consensus about the edits, the document is published as a
Recommendation.
7.1.4 Maturity Levels When Rescinding a
Recommendation
Rescinded Recommendation
A Rescinded Recommendation is an entire Recommendation that W3C no longer
endorses.
7.2
General Requirements for
Advancement
A Working Group
MUST
fulfill certain
requirements in order to qualify for each
step towards
Recommendation
For publication of first public Working Draft up to but not including
publication as a Recommendation, the Working Group
MUST
record the group's decision to request
advancement.
For a Last Call announcement up to and including publication as a
Recommendation, the Working Group
MUST
Indicate whether the document has been modified substantively since the
previous step. A
substantive change
(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
minor
changes
. A Working Group
MUST
document changes
(both substantive and minor) between steps.
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. For relevant requirements that have not been
fulfilled, the Working Group
MUST
provide
rationale to the satisfaction of the Director.
Indicate which dependencies with other groups the Working Group believes it
has satisfied, and report which dependencies have not been satisfied.
Show evidence of wide review.
Formally address
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).
Indicate any
formal
objections
The following information is important to the decision to advance a
technical report and therefore
MUST
be
publicly available
Details of changes if the technical report has been modified substantively
since the previous step (e.g., by providing "diffs" and summaries of important
changes);
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.
Evidence of wide review and that dependencies with other groups have been
resolved;
Responses that
formally address
issues
raised by reviewers;
Any
formal
objections
7.3
Reviews and Review
Responsibilities
Experience shows that the following help build consensus around technical
reports:
Frequent publication (see the
three-month rule
).
Early review, to find errors quickly and decrease the chances of diverging
technologies.
Wide review, including from other groups in and outside of W3C.
A document receives review from the moment it is first published. Starting
with the first publication through the end of a Proposed Recommendation review,
a Working Group
MUST
formally address
any
substantive review comment about a technical report and
SHOULD
do so in a timely manner. However, reviewers
SHOULD NOT
send substantive technical reviews late
on the Recommendation track. Reviewers
SHOULD NOT
expect that a Working Group will readily make
substantive changes
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
SHOULD BE
recorded even when not
incorporated into a mature document.
The Working Group
MUST
be able to show evidence
of having attempted to respond to and satisfy reviewers. Reviewers
MAY
register a
formal objection
any time they
are dissatisfied with how a Working Group has handled an issue.
A Working Group
SHOULD
negotiate review
schedules with other groups expected to review a document, including relevant
liaisons
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
SHOULD
send their comments early in a review
period. A Working Group
SHOULD NOT
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).
Ordinarily, reviewers
SHOULD NOT
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
MAY
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
MAY
register a
formal objection
Advisory Committee representatives
SHOULD NOT
(but
MAY
) raise new substantive technical issues
during a Proposed Recommendation review period. The Working Group
MAY
respond to the reviewer after the close of the
Proposed Recommendation review period.
Note:
It may be
necessary to
change confidentiality
level
when conveying issues raised by Advisory Committee representatives to
the Working Group.
During review by the Members, the Working Group
SHOULD
also
formally address
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.
When a Working Group receives a substantive issue after the end of Proposed
Recommendation review period, the Working Group
MUST
respond to the reviewer but
MAY
decline to
formally address
the issue. In this
case, the Working Group
MAY
consider the issue as
part of tracking
errata
7.4
Advancing a Technical Report to
Recommendation
W3C follows these steps when advancing a technical report to
Recommendation.
Publication of the first public Working Draft
Last Call announcement
Call for Implementations
Note:
The
Director
MAY
permit the Working Group to skip this
step if the entrance criteria for the next step have already been
satisfied.
Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation
Publication as a Recommendation
In general, Working Groups embark on this journey with the intent of
publishing one or more Recommendations. However, W3C
MAY
end work on a technical report
at any time, or
MAY
require a Working Group to
conduct
further work
, possibly repeating one or
more steps.
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
MAY
publish a new draft of the
technical report at the same maturity level provided there are no
substantive changes
since the earlier step.
The Team
MUST
notify the
Advisory Committee
and other W3C groups of a
revision to a Candidate Recommendation or Proposed Recommendation.
These steps of the Recommendation Track process can take considerable time,
so participants are encouraged to read the
tips on getting to Recommendation
faster
PUB27
].
Refer to
"How to Organize a Recommendation
Track Transition"
in the
Member
Guide
for practical information about preparing for the reviews and
announcements of the various steps.
7.4.1
First Public Working Draft
Document maturity level:
Working Draft
Announcement: The Director
MUST
announce the
first Working Draft publication to other W3C groups and to the public.
Purpose: The publication of the first public Working Draft is a signal to
the community to begin reviewing the document.
Entrance criteria: Director approval is
REQUIRED
in order for a Working Group to publish a first
public Working Draft (or version for review beyond the membership, e.g., if
another organization has been asked to review a draft that is not yet
public).
Ongoing work: Once a Working Draft has been published, the Working Group
continues to publish revisions; see the
three-month rule
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
Publication Rules
PUB31
]. Consensus is not a prerequisite for
approval to publish; the Working Group
MAY
request
publication of a Working Draft even if it is unstable and does not meet all
Working Group requirements.
Working Groups
SHOULD
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
SHOULD
encourage review
within their organizations as early as first public Working Draft, i.e., before
Last Call announcement
and
well before
Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation
The Working Group
SHOULD
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
important changes).
Possible next steps:
Forward:
Last Call announcement
Otherwise:
End Work
7.4.2
Last Call Announcement
Document maturity level:
Working Draft
Announcement: The Working Group
MUST
announce
the Last Call to other W3C groups and to the public.
Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:
the Working Group believes that it has satisfied its relevant technical
requirements (e.g., of the charter or requirements document) in the Working
Draft;
the Working Group believes that it has satisfied significant dependencies
with other groups;
other groups
SHOULD
review the document to
confirm that these dependencies have been satisfied.
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.
A Working Group
SHOULD
work with other groups
prior to a Last Call announcement to reduce the risk of surprise at Last
Call.
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
SHOULD NOT
assume that it has finished its work by
virtue of issuing a Last Call announcement.
Entrance criteria: Before announcing a Last Call, the Working Group
MUST
have fulfilled the
general requirements for advancement
A Last Call announcement
MUST
specify the deadline for review comments;
identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent Working
Groups;
solicit public review.
Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that
SHOULD
last at least
three
weeks
but
MAY
last longer if the technical
report is complex or has significant external dependencies.
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.
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
SHOULD
include a
statement about how the technology relates to existing international standards
and to related work outside of W3C.
Possible next steps:
Forward:
Call for Implementations
or
Call
for Review of a Proposed Recommendation
Otherwise:
Return to Working Group
or
End Work
7.4.3
Call for Implementations
Document maturity level:
Candidate Recommendation
Announcement: The Director
MUST
announce the
Call for Implementations to the
Advisory
Committee
Purpose: At this step, W3C believes the technical report is stable and
appropriate for implementation. The technical report
MAY
still change based on implementation experience.
Entrance criteria: The Director calls for implementation when satisfied that
the Working Group has fulfilled the
general
requirements for advancement
The Working Group is
NOT REQUIRED
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
SHOULD
include a report
of present and expected implementations as part of the request.
In the Call for Implementations, the Working Group
MAY
identify specific features of the technical report
as being "
features at risk
."
General statements such as "We plan to remove any unimplemented feature" are
not acceptable; the Working Group
MUST
precisely
identify any features at risk. Thus, in response to a Call for Implementations,
reviewers can indicate whether they would
formally object
to the removal
of the identified features.
After gathering implementation experience, the Working Group
MAY
remove features from the technical report that were
identified as being "at risk" and request that the Director
Call
for Review of a Proposed Recommendation
. If the Working Group makes other
substantive changes
to the technical report,
the Director
MUST
return it to the Working Group
for
further work
The request to the Director to advance a technical report to Candidate
Recommendation
MUST
indicate whether the Working
Group expects to satisfy any Proposed Recommendation entrance criteria beyond
the default requirements (described below).
Advisory Committee representatives
MAY
appeal
the decision to advance the technical
report.
Duration of the implementation period: The announcement
MUST
indicate a minimal duration, before which the
Working Group
MUST NOT
request a
Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation
; this minimal
duration is designed to allow time for comment. The announcement
SHOULD
also include the Working Group's estimate of the
time expected to gather sufficient implementation data.
Possible next steps:
Forward:
Call for Review of a Proposed
Recommendation
Otherwise:
Return to Working Group
or
End Work
7.4.4
Call for Review of a Proposed
Recommendation
Document maturity level:
Proposed Recommendation
Announcement: The Director
MUST
announce the
call for review to the
Advisory
Committee
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.
Entrance criteria: The Director calls for review when satisfied that the
Working Group has:
Fulfilled the
general requirements for
advancement
Shown that each feature of the technical report has been implemented.
Preferably, the Working Group
SHOULD
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
MAY
accept to
Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation even without adequate
implementation experience;
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).
Advisory Committee representatives
MAY
appeal
the decision to advance the technical
report.
Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that
MUST
last at least
four
weeks
Ongoing work: During the review period, the Working Group requests
endorsement and support from Members (e.g., testimonials as part of a press
release).
Possible next steps:
Forward: Publication as a
W3C
Recommendation
Otherwise:
Return to Working Group
or
End Work
7.4.5
Publication of a W3C
Recommendation
Document maturity level:
Recommendation
Announcement: The Director
MUST
announce the
publication of a W3C Recommendation to the
Advisory Committee
Purpose: W3C publishes Recommendations when it believes that the ideas in
the technical report are appropriate for widespread deployment and that they
promote
W3C's mission
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
W3C decision
If there was any
dissent
during the
Member review, Advisory Committee representatives
MAY
appeal
the
decision to publish the Recommendation.
Possible next steps:
End state: A technical report
MAY
remain a
Recommendation indefinitely
Otherwise:
Modification of a Recommendation
or
Rescinding a Recommendation
The Director
MAY
submit a W3C Recommendation to
another standards body for adoption and formal approval by that body.
7.4.6
Returning a Document to a
Working Group for Further Work
A technical report is returned to a Working Group for further work in either
of the following situations:
The Working Group makes
substantive
changes
to the technical report at any time after a
Last Call announcement
and prior to
Publication as a Recommendation
except
when the changes involve the removal of
features at risk
identified in a
Call for Implementations
. In the case of substantive changes,
the Working Group
MUST
republish the technical
report as a Working Draft.
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
MAY
request that the Working Group
republish the technical report as a Working Draft, even if the Working Group
has not made
substantive changes
The Director
MUST
inform the
Advisory Committee
and group Chairs when a
technical report has been returned to a Working Group for further work.
After republication as a Working Draft, the next forward step available to
the Working Group is a
Last Call announcement
. The
Last Call announcement
MAY
occur at the same time
as the publication of the Working Draft.
The Director
MAY
ask the Working Group to
republish a technical report as a Candidate Recommendation. At the same time as
publication, the Director issues a
Call for
Implementations
7.5
Ending Work on a Technical Report
Work on a technical report
MAY
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.
Work
MAY
also cease because W3C determines that
it cannot productively carry the work any further. For instance, the Director
might
close a Working Group
, 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
SHOULD
be published as a Working Group Note.
Possible next steps:
End state: A technical report
MAY
remain a
Working Group Note indefinitely
Otherwise: A Working Group
MAY
resume work on
the technical report as a Working Draft
7.6
Modifying a W3C
Recommendation
W3C makes every effort to maintain its Recommendations (e.g., by tracking
errata, providing testbed 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.
7.6.1
Errata Management
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).
Note:
Before a document becomes a Recommendation, an important
change is called a
substantive change
and
relates to the impact of the change on earlier review. After a document has
been published as Recommendation, an important change is one that relates to
the conformance of content or deployed software.
Working Groups
MUST
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
Publication Rules
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
MAY
include both proposed and normative corrections. The
Working Group
MUST
clearly identify which
corrections are proposed and which are normative.
A Working Group
SHOULD
keep their errata pages
up-to-date, as errors are reported by readers and implementers. A Working Group
MUST
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.
7.6.2
Classes of
Changes to a Recommendation
This document distinguishes the following classes of changes to a
Recommendation.
1. No changes to text content
These changes include fixing broken links or invalid markup.
2. Corrections that do not affect conformance
Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the technical
content of the specification.
3. Corrections that
MAY
affect conformance,
but add no new features
These changes
MAY
affect conformance to the
Recommendation. A change that affects conformance is one that:
turns conforming data, processors, or other conforming agents into
non-conforming agents, or
turns non-conforming agents into conforming ones, or
clears up an ambiguity or underspecified part of the specification in such
a way that an agent whose conformance was once unclear becomes clearly
conforming or non-conforming.
4. New features
For new features, W3C follows the full process of
advancing a technical report to Recommendation
The first two classes of change require no technical review of the proposed
changes, although a Working Group
MAY
call for
review. The modified Recommendation is published according to the Team's
requirements, including
Publication
Rules
PUB31
].
For the third class of change, W3C requires:
Review by the community to ensure the technical soundness of proposed
corrections.
Timely publication of the edited Recommendation, with corrections
incorporated.
For the third class of change, the Working Group
MUST
either:
Request that the Director issue a
Call for Review of
an Edited Recommendation
, or
Issue a
Call for Review of Proposed
Corrections
that have not been incorporated into an edited draft (e.g.,
those listed on an errata page). After this review, the Director
MAY
announce that the proposed corrections are
normative.
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.
7.6.3
Call for Review of an Edited
Recommendation
Document maturity level:
Proposed Edited
Recommendation
Announcement: The Director
MUST
announce the
call for review to other W3C groups, the public, and the
Advisory Committee
Purpose: At this step, W3C seeks confirmation of proposed corrections to a
Recommendation.
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
Call for Review of a Proposed
Recommendation
(e.g., the Working Group can show implementation experience
that supports the changes). In the request to advance to this status, the
Working Group
MUST
report any substantive issues
about the technical report that have not been resolved.
The announcement
MUST
fulfill the same
requirements as a
Last Call announcement
and
MUST
clearly indicate that this is a proposal to edit a
Recommendation.
Advisory Committee representatives
MAY
appeal
the decision to advance the technical
report.
Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that
MUST
last at least
four
weeks
Ongoing work: Same as for a
Last Call review
Possible next steps:
Forward:
Publication of a W3C
Recommendation
Otherwise, the Recommendation remains unchanged and two steps are possible:
Return to Working Group
or
End
Work
7.6.4
Call for Review of
Proposed Corrections
Document maturity level: A Recommendation, plus a list of proposed
corrections. The Working Group
SHOULD
also include
a detailed description of how the Working Group plans to change the text of the
Recommendation for each proposed correction.
Announcement: The Working Group
MUST
announce
the call for review to other W3C groups, the public, and the
Advisory Committee
Purpose: At this step, W3C seeks confirmation of proposed corrections to a
Recommendation.
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
Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation
The announcement
MUST
fulfill the same
requirements as a
Last Call announcement
and
MUST
clearly indicate that this is a proposal to make
normative corrections to the Recommendation.
Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that
MUST
last at least
four
weeks
Ongoing work: Same as for a
Last Call review
If there are no
formal
objections
to the proposed corrections, W3C considers them normative. The
Working Group
MUST
report formal objections to the
Director, who assesses whether there is sufficient consensus to declare the
proposed corrections to be normative.
Possible next steps:
Forward:
Publication of a W3C
Recommendation
. In order for the corrections to remain normative, the
Working Group
MUST
incorporate them into an edited
Recommendation. The Working Group
MUST
publish the
revised Recommendation within
six months
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
MUST
request a
Call for Review of an Edited
Recommendation
Otherwise: The Recommendation remains unchanged and two steps are possible:
Return to Working Group
or
End
Work
7.7
Rescinding a W3C
Recommendation
At times, W3C
MAY
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.
To deprecate
part
of a Recommendation, W3C follows the process for
modifying a Recommendation
Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical
reports
MUST NOT
include normative references to
that technical report.
7.7.1
Proposal
to Rescind a Recommendation
Document maturity level: Recommendation, plus separate rationale for the
proposal to rescind.
Announcement: The Director
MUST
announce the
Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation to other W3C groups, the public, and the
Advisory Committee
Purpose: At this step, W3C seeks confirmation of a Proposal to Rescind a
Recommendation.
Entrance criteria: The Director proposes that W3C rescind a Recommendation
when satisfied that there is sufficient reason.
The announcement
MUST
fulfill the same
requirements as a
Last Call announcement
and
MUST
clearly indicate that this is a Proposal to Rescind
a Recommendation.
Advisory Committee representatives
MAY
appeal
the proposal to rescind the
Recommendation.
Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that
MUST
last at least
four
weeks
Ongoing work: Same as for a
Last Call review
Possible next steps:
Forward:
Publication of a Rescinded
Recommendation
Otherwise: The Recommendation remains unchanged and two steps are possible:
Return to Working Group
or
End
Work
7.7.2
Publication of a Rescinded
Recommendation
Document maturity level:
Rescinded
Recommendation
Announcement: The Director
MUST
announce the
Publication of a Rescinded Recommendation to the
Advisory Committee
Purpose: At this step, W3C indicates that it no longer endorses a previously
published Recommendation.
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
W3C
decision
The Team
MAY
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).
If there was any
dissent
in the
Proposed Rescinded Recommendation reviews, Advisory Committee representatives
MAY
appeal
the decision to rescind the Recommendation.
Possible next step:
End state: A technical report
MAY
remain a
Rescinded Recommendation indefinitely
7.8
General Information
about Technical Reports
Every document published as part of the Recommendation Track process
MUST
be a public document. The
list of W3C technical reports
PUB11
] 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.
Every document published as part of the Recommendation Track process
MUST
clearly indicate its
maturity level
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. Editors are
NOT REQUIRED
to be part of the Team.
The Team is
NOT REQUIRED
to publish a technical
report that does not conform to the Team's
Publication Rules
(e.g., for
naming
, style, and
copyright requirements
).
These rules are subject to change. The Team
MUST
inform group Chairs and the Advisory Board of any changes.
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
document status section
).
The primary language for W3C technical reports is English. W3C encourages
the translation of its technical reports.
Information about translations
of W3C technical reports
PUB18
is available at the W3C Web site.
7.8.1
Document Status
Section
Each technical report
MUST
include a section
about the status of the document. The status section
SHOULD
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.
The Team's
Publication Rules
include status section requirements for each maturity level.
next chapter
previous chapter
contents