diff --git a/index.bs b/index.bs index 11e5dc79..28985910 100644 --- a/index.bs +++ b/index.bs @@ -1807,7 +1807,7 @@ Content of a Charter For every Recommendation Track deliverable that continues work on [=technical report=] published under any other Charter (including a predecessor group of the same name), - for which there is at least an existing [=First Public Working Draft=] + for which there is at least an existing [=First Public Working Group Draft=] the description of that deliverable in the proposed charter of the adopting Working Group must provide the following information: @@ -1815,7 +1815,7 @@ Content of a Charter
  • The title, stable URL, - and publication date of the [=Working Draft=] + and publication date of the [=Working Group Draft=] or other Recommendation-track document that will serve as the basis for work on the deliverable (labeled “Adopted Draft”); @@ -2703,10 +2703,10 @@ Determining the W3C Decision
    For example, to make [=substantive changes=] to a [=Proposed Recommendations=], - the [=technical report=] could be returned to [=Candidate Recommendation=]. + the [=technical report=] could be returned to [=Working Group Specification=]. Alternatively, the desired changes can be introduced as non-substantive amendments using the process for [[#revising-rec|revising a Recommendation]]. - However, they cannot be directly integrated between [=PR=] and [=REC=], + However, they cannot be directly integrated between [=PR=] and [=Recommendation=], because that would fail to trigger a patent exclusion opportunity.
    @@ -2987,7 +2987,7 @@ Wide Review and whether such reviews actually occurred. For example, - inviting review of new or significantly revised sections published in Working Drafts, + inviting review of new or significantly revised sections published in Working Group Drafts, and tracking those comments and the [=Working Group=]'s responses, is generally a good practice which would often be considered positive evidence of wide review. @@ -2996,7 +2996,7 @@ Wide Review and should announce to other W3C Working Groups as well as the general public, especially those affected by this specification, - a proposal to enter [=Candidate Recommendation=] + a proposal to enter [=Working Group Specification=] (for example in approximately 28 days). By contrast a generic statement in a document requesting review at any time @@ -3133,7 +3133,7 @@ Candidate Amendments and are published accordingly. Note: Annotating changes in this way allows more mature documents - such as [=Recommendations=] and [=Candidate Recommendations=] + such as [=Recommendations=] and [=Working Group Specifications=] to be updated quickly with the Working Group's most current thinking, even when the [=candidate amendments=] have not yet received sufficient review or implementation experience @@ -3149,7 +3149,7 @@ Candidate Amendments In addition to their actual [[#maturity-stages|maturity stage]], [=published=] [=REC Track=] documents with [=candidate amendments=] are also considered, for the purpose of the W3C Patent Policy [[PATENT-POLICY]], - to be [=Working Drafts=] with those [=candidate amendments=] treated as normative. + to be [=Working Group Drafts=] with those [=candidate amendments=] treated as normative.

    Maintenance Without a Group

    @@ -3180,10 +3180,10 @@ Maintenance Without a Group a normative portion of the Recommendation, as defined in the Patent Policy [[PATENT-POLICY]] (i.e., they are not covered by the Patent Policy). - For [=Candidate Recommendations=], + For [=Working Group Specifications=], [=Proposed Recommendations=], [=W3C Recommendations=], - [=Candidate Registries=], + [=Working Group Registries=], [=W3C Registries=], as well as [=W3C Statements=], the [=Team=] must solicit [=wide review=] @@ -3215,7 +3215,7 @@ The W3C Recommendation Track as they advance towards [=W3C Recommendation=] status. Once review suggests the Working Group has met their requirements for a new standard, including [=wide review=], - a [=Candidate Recommendation=] phase + a [=Working Group Specification=] phase allows the [=Working Group=] to formally collect implementation experience to demonstrate that the specification works in practice. At the end of the process, @@ -3226,9 +3226,9 @@ The W3C Recommendation Track In summary, the W3C Recommendation Track consists of:
      -
    1. Publication of the [=First Public Working Draft=]. -
    2. Publication of zero or more revised [=Working Drafts=]. -
    3. Publication of one or more [=Candidate Recommendations=]. +
    4. Publication of the [=First Public Working Group Draft=]. +
    5. Publication of zero or more revised [=Working Group Drafts=]. +
    6. Publication of one or more [=Working Group Specifications=].
    7. Publication of a [=Proposed Recommendation=].
    8. Publication as a [=W3C Recommendation=].
    @@ -3261,25 +3261,27 @@ Maturity Stages on the Recommendation Track
    - Working Draft (WD) + Working Group Draft (Working Draft, WD, WGD)
    - A Working Draft is a document that W3C has [=published=] + A _Working Group Draft_, or alternatively just _Working Draft_, + as such documents have traditionally been called — and are often _still_ called — + is a document that has been [=published=] on the W3C's Technical Reports page [[TR]] for review by the community (including W3C Members), the public, and other technical organizations, and for simple historical reference. - Some, but not all, Working Drafts are meant to advance to [=Recommendation=]; - see the document status section of a Working Draft + Some, but not all, Working Group Drafts (Working Drafts) are meant to advance to [=Recommendation=]; + see the document status section of a Working Group Draft for the group's expectations. - [=Working Drafts=] do not necessarily represent a [=consensus=] of the [=Working Group=] with respect to their content, + [=Working Group Drafts=] do not necessarily represent a [=consensus=] of the [=Working Group=] with respect to their content, and do not imply any endorsement by W3C or its members beyond agreement to work on a general area of technology. - Nevertheless the [=Working Group=] decided to adopt the [=Working Draft=] + Nevertheless the [=Working Group=] decided to adopt the [=Working Group Draft=] as the basis for their work at the time of adoption. - A [=Working Draft=] is suitable for gathering [=wide review=] + A [=Working Group Draft=] is suitable for gathering [=wide review=] prior to advancing to the next stage of maturity. - For all Working Drafts a Working Group: + For all Working Group Drafts a Working Group:
    • @@ -3288,21 +3290,21 @@ Maturity Stages on the Recommendation Track and
    • - may request publication of a Working Draft + may request publication of a Working Group Draft even if its content is considered unstable and does not meet all Working Group requirements.
    - The first Working Draft of a technical report is called the First Public Working Draft (FPWD), + The first Working Group Draft of a technical report is called the First Public Working Group Draft (FPWD), and has patent implications as defined in the W3C Patent Policy [[!PATENT-POLICY]].
    - Candidate Recommendation (CR) + Working Group Specification (WGS)
    - A Candidate Recommendation is a document that satisfies the technical + A Working Group Specification is a document that satisfies the technical requirements of the Working Group that produced it and their dependencies, and has already received wide review. - W3C publishes a Candidate Recommendation to + A Working Group publishes a Working Group Specification to - Note: Advancing to [=Candidate Recommendation=] indicates + Note: Advancing to [=Working Group Specification=] indicates that the document is considered complete and fit for purpose, and that no further refinement to the text is expected without additional implementation experience and testing; however, additional features might be expected in a later revision. - A [=Candidate Recommendation=] is expected to be as well-written, + A [=Working Group Specification=] is expected to be as well-written, detailed, self-consistent, and technically complete @@ -3324,51 +3326,46 @@ Maturity Stages on the Recommendation Track and acceptable as such if and when the requirements for further advancement are met. - Candidate Recommendation publications take one of two forms: + A normal Working Group Specification + is published + to solicit review of intended changes from the previous [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=]. + This allows for wider review of the changes + and for ease of reference to the integrated specification. -
    -
    - Candidate Recommendation Snapshot (CRS) -
    - A Candidate Recommendation Snapshot - corresponds to a [=Patent Review Draft=] - as used in the W3C Patent Policy [[!PATENT-POLICY]]. - Publishing a [=Patent Review Draft=] triggers a Call for Exclusions, - per “Exclusion From W3C RF Licensing Requirements” - in the W3C Patent Policy. - - Publication as a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] - requires verification of either a [=Transition Request=] - (for the first [=Candidate Recommendation=] publication from another maturity stage) - or an [=Update Request=] - (for subsequent [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshots=]). -
    - Candidate Recommendation Draft (CRD) -
    - A Candidate Recommendation Draft - is published - to solicit review of intended changes from the previous [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=]. - This allows for wider review of the changes - and for ease of reference to the integrated specification. - - Any changes published directly into a [=Candidate Recommendation Draft=] - should be at the same level of quality as a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=]. - However, the process requirements are minimized - so that the Working Group can easily keep the specification up to date. - - A [=Candidate Recommendation Draft=] - does not provide an exclusion opportunity; - instead, it is considered a [=Working Draft=] - for the purpose of the W3C Patent Policy [[PATENT-POLICY]]. -
    + Any changes published directly into a normal [=Working Group Specification=] + should be at the same level of quality as a [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=]. + However, the process requirements are minimized + so that the Working Group can easily keep the specification up to date. + + A normal [=Working Group Specification=] + does not provide an exclusion opportunity; + instead, it is considered a [=Working Group Draft=] + for the purpose of the W3C Patent Policy [[PATENT-POLICY]]. - A Rescinded Candidate Recommendation - is a [=Candidate Recommendation=] in which significant problems have been discovered +
    + Working Group Specification Snapshot (WGS Snapshot) +
    + A Working Group Specification Snapshot + is a special type of Working Group Specification which + corresponds to a [=Patent Review Draft=] + as used in the W3C Patent Policy [[!PATENT-POLICY]]. + Publishing a [=Patent Review Draft=] triggers a Call for Exclusions, + per “Exclusion From W3C RF Licensing Requirements” + in the W3C Patent Policy. + + Publication as a [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=] + requires verification of either a [=Transition Request=] + (for the first [=Working Group Specification=] publication from another maturity stage) + or an [=Update Request=] + (for subsequent [=Working Group Specification Snapshots=]). + + A Rescinded Working Group Specification + is a [=Working Group Specification=] in which significant problems have been discovered such that W3C cannot endorse it or continue work on it, for example due to burdensome patent claims that affect implementers and cannot be resolved (see the W3C Patent Policy [[PATENT-POLICY]] and in particular “PAG Conclusion”). - There is no path to restoration for a [=Rescinded Candidate Recommendation=]. + There is no path to restoration for a [=Rescinded Working Group Specification=]. See “W3C Royalty-Free (RF) Licensing Requirements” in the W3C Patent Policy [[!PATENT-POLICY]] for implication on patent licensing obligations. @@ -3385,7 +3382,7 @@ Maturity Stages on the Recommendation Track returned to the [=Working Group=] for further work, or abandoned. [=Substantive changes=] must not be made to a [=Proposed Recommendation=] - except by [=publishing=] a new [=Working Draft=] or [=Candidate Recommendation=]. + except by [=publishing=] a new [=Working Group Draft=] or [=Working Group Specification=].
    W3C Recommendation (REC) @@ -3457,12 +3454,12 @@ Maturity Stages on the Recommendation Track this can be achieved by reducing the scope of the technical report to a subset that is adequately mature and deferring less stable features to other technical reports. - When publishing an updated version of an existing [=Candidate Recommendation=] or [=Recommendation=], + When publishing an updated version of an existing [=Working Group Specification=] or [=Recommendation=], technical reports are expected to meet the same maturity criteria as when they are first published under that status. However, in the interest of replacing stale documents with improved ones in a timely manner, - if flaws have been discovered in the technical report after its initial publication as a [=CR=] or [=REC=] + if flaws have been discovered in the technical report after its initial publication as a [=Working Group Specification=] or [=Recommendation=] that would have been severe enough to reject that publication had they be known in time, - it is also permissible to publish an updated [=CR=] or [=REC=] following the usual process, + it is also permissible to publish an updated [=Working Group Specification=] or [=Recommendation=] following the usual process, even if only some of these flaws have been satisfactorily addressed. [=Working Groups=] and [=Interest Groups=] may make available [=Editor's drafts=]. @@ -3566,16 +3563,16 @@ Advancement on the Recommendation Track should provide information about implementations known to the [=Working Group=]. - For a [=First Public Working Draft=] there is no “previous maturity stage”, + For a [=First Public Working Group Draft=] there is no “previous maturity stage”, so many requirements do not apply, and verification is normally fairly straightforward. For later stages, - especially transition to [=Candidate Recommendation|Candidate=] or [=Proposed Recommendation=], + especially transition to [=Working Group Specification=] or [=Proposed Recommendation=], there is usually a formal review meeting to verify that the requirements have been met. - [=Transition Requests=] to [=First Public Working Draft=] - or [=Candidate Recommendation=] + [=Transition Requests=] to [=First Public Working Group Draft=] + or [=Working Group Specification=] will not normally be approved while a [=Working Group=]'s [=charter=] is undergoing or awaiting a decision on an [=Advisory Committee Review=].

    @@ -3661,26 +3658,26 @@ Updating Mature Publications on the Recommendation Track to other W3C groups and the Public.

    -Publishing a First Public Working Draft

    +Publishing a First Public Working Group Draft - To publish the [=First Public Working Draft=] of a document, + To publish the [=First Public Working Group Draft=] of a document, a [=Working Group=] must meet the applicable requirements for advancement. The [=Team=] must announce - the publication of a [=First Public Working Draft=] + the publication of a [=First Public Working Group Draft=] to other W3C groups and to the public.

    -Revising a Working Draft

    +Revising a Working Group Draft - A [=Working Group=] should [=publish=] a [=Working Draft=] + A [=Working Group=] should [=publish=] a [=Working Group Draft=] to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes to the previous published document that would benefit from review beyond the Working Group. If 6 months elapse without significant changes to a specification, - a Working Group should publish a revised [=Working Draft=], + a Working Group should publish a revised [=Working Group Draft=], whose status section should indicate reasons for the lack of change. To publish a revision of a Working draft, a Working Group: @@ -3694,7 +3691,7 @@ Revising a Working Draft
  • must provide public documentation of [=substantive changes=] to the technical report - since the previous [=Working Draft=], + since the previous [=Working Group Draft=],
  • should provide public documentation @@ -3711,18 +3708,18 @@ Revising a Working Draft should report any changes in dependencies with other groups, - Possible next steps for any Working Draft: + Possible next steps for any Working Group Draft:

    -Transitioning to Candidate Recommendation

    +Transitioning to Working Group Specification - To publish a [=Candidate Recommendation=], + To publish a [=Working Group Specification=], in addition to meeting the requirements for advancement a [=Working Group=]: @@ -3741,7 +3738,7 @@ Transitioning to Candidate Recommendation
  • must specify the deadline for comments, - delineating the Candidate Recommendation review period, + delineating the Working Group Specification review period, which must be at least 28 days after publication, and should be longer for complex documents, @@ -3752,23 +3749,23 @@ Transitioning to Candidate Recommendation may identify features in the document as at risk. These features may be removed before advancement to [=Proposed Recommendation=] - without a requirement to publish a new [=Candidate Recommendation=]. + without a requirement to publish a new [=Working Group Specification=]. - The first Candidate Recommendation publication + The first Working Group Specification publication after verification of having met the requirements for a [=Transition Request=] - is always a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=]. + is always a [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=]. The [=Team=] must announce - the publication of the [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] + the publication of the [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=] to other W3C groups and to the public. - Possible next steps after a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=]: + Possible next steps after a [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=]: @@ -3777,13 +3774,13 @@ Transitioning to Candidate Recommendation Advisory Committee Appeal of the decision to advance the technical report.

    -Revising a Candidate Recommendation

    +Revising a Working Group Specification -
    -Publishing a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=]
    +
    +Publishing a [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=]
    - If there are any [=substantive changes=] made to a [=Candidate Recommendation=] - since the previous [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] + If there are any [=substantive changes=] made to a [=Working Group Specification=] + since the previous [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=] other than to remove features explicitly identified as [=at risk=], the [=Working Group=] must meet the requirements of an [=update request=] in order to republish. @@ -3800,39 +3797,39 @@ Publishing a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] may identify features in the document as [=at risk=]. These features may be removed before advancement to [=Proposed Recommendation=] - without a requirement to publish a new [=Candidate Recommendation=]. + without a requirement to publish a new [=Working Group Specification=]. The [=Team=] must announce - the publication of a revised [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] + the publication of a revised [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=] to other W3C groups and to the public. To provide timely updates and patent protection, - a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] + a [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=] should be published within 24 months of the Working Group accepting any proposal for a substantive change (and preferably sooner). To make scheduling reviews easier, - a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] should not be published + a [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=] should not be published more often than approximately once every 6 months. Note: [=Substantive changes=] trigger a new Exclusion Opportunity per “Exclusion From W3C RF Licensing Requirements” in the W3C Patent Policy [[!PATENT-POLICY]]. -
    -Publishing a [=Candidate Recommendation Draft=]
    +
    +Publishing a [=Working Group Specification=]
    - A [=Working Group=] should [=publish=] an [=Candidate Recommendation Draft|Update Draft=] + A [=Working Group=] should [=publish=] an [=Working Group Specification|Update Draft=] to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes to the previous published document that would benefit from review beyond the Working Group. - To publish a revision of a [=Candidate Recommendation Draft=], + To publish a revision of a [=Working Group Specification=], a Working Group:
      @@ -3842,12 +3839,12 @@ Publishing a [=Candidate Recommendation Draft=]
    • must provide public documentation of [=substantive changes=] to the technical report - since the previous [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=], + since the previous [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=],
    • should provide public documentation of significant [=editorial changes=] to the technical report - since the previous [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=], + since the previous [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=],
    • should document outstanding issues, @@ -3865,15 +3862,15 @@ Publishing a [=Candidate Recommendation Draft=]
    Note: A Working Group does not need to - meet the requirements of a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] [=update request=] - in order to publish a [=Candidate Recommendation Draft=]. + meet the requirements of a [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=] [=update request=] + in order to publish a normal [=Working Group Specification=]. - Possible next steps after a [=Candidate Recommendation Draft=]: + Possible next steps after a [=Working Group Specification=]:
      -
    • Return to Working Draft
      • -
    • A revised Candidate Recommendation Snapshot
      • -
    • A revised Candidate Recommendation Draft
      • +
    • Return to Working Group Draft
      • +
    • A revised Working Group Specification Snapshot
      • +
    • A revised Working Group Specification
    • Proposed Recommendation, if there are no [=substantive change=] other than dropping [=at risk=] features
    • Discontinued Draft
      • @@ -3907,22 +3904,22 @@ Transitioning to Proposed Recommendation
    • must show that all issues - raised during the [=Candidate Recommendation review period=] + raised during the [=Working Group Specification review period=] have been [=formally addressed=],
    • must identify any substantive issues - raised since the close of the [=Candidate Recommendation review period=], + raised since the close of the [=Working Group Specification review period=],
    • must not have made any [=substantive changes=] to the document - since the most recent [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=], + since the most recent [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=], other than dropping features identified [=at risk=].
    • may have removed features - identified in the [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] document as [=at risk=] - without republishing the specification as a [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=]. + identified in the [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=] document as [=at risk=] + without republishing the specification as a [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=].
    The [=Team=]: @@ -3946,8 +3943,8 @@ Transitioning to Proposed Recommendation Since a [=W3C Recommendation=] must not include any [=substantive changes=] from the [=Proposed Recommendation=] it is based on, to make any [=substantive change=] to a [=Proposed Recommendation=] - the [=Working Group=] must return the specification to [=Candidate Recommendation=] - or [=Working Draft=]. + the [=Working Group=] must return the specification to [=Working Group Specification=] + or [=Working Group Draft=].

    A [=Proposed Recommendation=] may identify itself @@ -3963,10 +3960,10 @@ Transitioning to Proposed Recommendation

    • - Return to Working Draft + Return to Working Group Draft
    • - Return to Candidate Recommendation + Return to Working Group Specification
    • Recommendation status, @@ -4024,7 +4021,7 @@ Transitioning to W3C Recommendation republished as a revised Recommendation, or
    • - republished as a Candidate Recommendation + republished as a Working Group Specification to be developed towards a revised [=Recommendation=], or
    • @@ -4071,9 +4068,9 @@ Revising a Recommendation: Substantive Changes Alternatively, a [=Working Group=] may incorporate the changes - and publish as a Working Draft-- + and publish as a Working Group Draft-- or, if the relevant criteria are fulfilled, - publish as a Candidate Recommendation-- + publish as a Working Group Specification-- and advance the specification from that state. (See class 3 changes.) @@ -4094,7 +4091,7 @@ Revising a Recommendation: New Features to a [=Recommendation=] that does not [=allow new features=], W3C must create a new [=technical report=], following the full process of advancing a technical report to Recommendation - beginning with a new [=First Public Working Draft=]. + beginning with a new [=First Public Working Group Draft=].
      Incorporating Candidate Amendments
      @@ -4214,12 +4211,12 @@ Abandoning an Unfinished Recommendation on such a [=technical report=] within the scope of its charter at any time, - by re-[=publishing=] it as a [=Working Draft=]. + by re-[=publishing=] it as a [=Working Group Draft=].
      -Rescinding a Candidate Recommendation
      +Rescinding a Working Group Specification - The process for rescinding a [=Candidate Recommendation=] + The process for rescinding a [=Working Group Specification=] is the same as for rescinding a [=Recommendation=].
      @@ -4665,23 +4662,23 @@ Publishing Registries
    • [=Registry reports=] are not subject to the [[PATENT-POLICY]], and therefore none of their publications correspond, - to [=First Public Working Draft=], - [=Working Draft=], + to [=First Public Working Group Draft=], + [=Working Group Draft=], or [=Patent Review Draft=] for the purposes of the [[PATENT-POLICY]].
    • For the same reason, there is no equivalent to [=Rescinded Recommendation=] - nor to [=Rescinded Candidate Recommendation=] for [=Registries=]. + nor to [=Rescinded Working Group Specification=] for [=Registries=].
    • - The equivalent of [=Working Draft=] is called Registry Draft. + The equivalent of [=Working Group Draft=] is called Registry Draft.
    • - The equivalent of [=Candidate Recommendation=] is called Candidate Registry, - with [=Candidate Recommendation Snapshot=] and [=Candidate Recommendation Draft=] corresponding to - Candidate Registry Snapshot and Candidate Registry Draft. + The equivalent of [=Working Group Specification=] is called Working Group Registry, + with [=Working Group Specification Snapshot=] and [=Working Group Specification=] corresponding to + Working Group Registry Snapshot and (normal) Working Group Registry Draft.
    • The equivalent of [=W3C Recommendation=] is called W3C Registry; @@ -4692,7 +4689,7 @@ Publishing Registries There is no equivalent to the Proposed Recommendation phase. Instead, an [=Advisory Committee Review=] is started - upon publication of each [=Candidate Registry Snapshot=]. + upon publication of each [=Working Group Registry Snapshot=].
    • Changes that add new features (i.e. [[#correction-classes|class 4 changes]]) are allowed @@ -4828,12 +4825,12 @@ Switching Tracks their new track’s initial maturity stage, while retaining any established identity (url, shortname, etc.). - Note: The initial maturity stage of the [=Recommendation track=] is [=Working Draft=]. - [=First Public Working Draft=] designates a specific type of [=Working Draft=] + Note: The initial maturity stage of the [=Recommendation track=] is [=Working Group Draft=]. + [=First Public Working Group Draft=] designates a specific type of [=Working Group Draft=] and is not a separate maturity stage. - A document which switches to the [=Recommendation track=] is only published as a [=First Public Working Draft=] + A document which switches to the [=Recommendation track=] is only published as a [=First Public Working Group Draft=] if it was never previously published as such; - otherwise, it is simply a [=Working Draft=]. + otherwise, it is simply a [=Working Group Draft=].

      Further reading