On 1 August 2014, W3C began a transition away from this document; see the current W3C Process Document.
The W3C technical report development 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:
The W3C technical report development process is designed to maximize consensus about the content of a technical report, to ensure high technical and editorial quality, to promote consistency among specifications, and to earn endorsement by W3C and the broader community. See also the licensing goals for W3C Recommendations in section 2 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33].
The following sections describe:
Maturity levels are described first, followed by the steps of the technical report development process and the requirements for each step.
The maturity level of a published technical report indicates its place in the development process. The maturity levels "Working Draft" and "Working Group Note" represent the possible initial states of a technical report in the development process. The maturity levels "Recommendation," "Working Group Note," and "Rescinded Recommendation" represent the possible end states.
In addition to Working Drafts that are meant to advance to Recommendation, the other maturity levels of the Recommendation Track are:
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 has stopped using the unqualified maturity level "Note."
W3C MAY also publish "Interest Group Notes" and "Coordination Group Notes". Because the label "W3C Working Draft" is so strongly associated with W3C Working Group deliverables (especially those on the Recommendation Track), W3C publishes "Interest/Coordination Group Notes" for both ongoing and completed work by those groups.
In preparation for advancement to Candidate Recommendation or subsequent maturity levels up to and including publication as a Recommendation, the Working Group MUST:
The following information is important to the decision to advance a technical report and therefore MUST be publicly available:
Refer to "How to Organize a Recommendation Track Transition" in the Member guide for practical guidance on satisfying these requirements.
Experience shows that the following help build consensus around technical reports:
A document receives review from the moment it is first published. Starting with the First Public Working Draft until the start of a Last Call review, a Working Group SHOULD formally address any substantive review comment about a technical report and SHOULD do so in a timely manner.
Starting with a Last Call review up to the transition to Proposed Recommendation, a Working Group MUST formally address any substantive review comment about a technical report and SHOULD do so in a timely manner. When a Working Group requests 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).
The Director MUST 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 MUST 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.
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 start 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 Director 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.
W3C follows these steps when advancing a technical report to 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 technical report development 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.
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. See section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] for information about the policy implications of the First Public Working Draft.
Entrance criteria: The Chair MUST 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 REQUIRED for the transition.
Ongoing work: After publication of the First Public Working Draft, the Working Group generally revises the technical report (see the Working Group "Heartbeat" Requirement) in accordance with its charter.
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 a Last Call announcement and well before a 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 substantive changes).
Possible next steps:
Document maturity level: Working Draft.
Announcement: The Working Group MUST announce the Last Call to other W3C groups and to the public. A Last Call announcement MUST:
Purpose: A Working Group's Last Call announcement is a signal that:
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 do all of the following:
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:
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 register a Formal Objection to the decision to remove 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:
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:
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:
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:
The Director MAY submit a W3C Recommendation to another standards body for adoption and formal approval by that body.
A technical report is returned to a Working Group for further work in either of the following situations:
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.
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:
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.
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, the W3C Process focuses on substantive changes (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.
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.
This document distinguishes the following classes of changes to a Recommendation.
The first two classes of change require no technical review of the proposed changes, although a Working Group MAY issue a 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:
For the third class of change, the Working Group MUST either:
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.
For the fourth class of change (new features), W3C MUST follow the full process of advancing a technical report to 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. The announcement MUST clearly indicate that this is a proposal to edit a Recommendation and MUST:
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.
Advisory Committee representatives MAY appeal the decision to advance the technical report.
Duration of the review: The announcement begins a formal Advisory Committee review period that MUST last at least four weeks.
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.
Possible next steps:
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. This is not a formal Advisory Committee review. However, the announcement MUST clearly indicate that this is a proposal to make normative corrections to the Recommendation and MUST:
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.
Duration of the review: The announcement begins a review period that MUST last at least four weeks.
Ongoing work: Same as for a Proposed Edited Recommendation.
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:
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; see the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] and in particular section 5 (bullet 10) and section 7.5.
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.
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. The announcement MUST clearly indicate that this is a Proposal to Rescind a Recommendation and MUST:
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.
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: During the review period, the Working Group solicits and responds to comments from the Team, the Members, other W3C groups, and the public.
Possible next steps:
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:
Every document published as part of the technical report development process MUST be a public document. The index 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 technical report development process MUST clearly indicate its maturity level.
Every technical report published as part of the technical report development 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 MUST fulfill the same participation requirements for that group, as a Member representative, Team representative, or Invited Expert. All other W3C editors MUST be participants in the group responsible for the document(s) they are editing. Note that an editor is NOT REQUIRED to be a Team representative.
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.
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.
| 宝宝不爱吃饭是什么原因 | 痛风看什么科 | 嘴子是什么意思 | 李白是什么 | 小孩肚子疼挂什么科 |
| 外痔是什么样子的 | 一纸空文是什么意思 | 腱鞘炎用什么药 | 小妾是什么意思 | 女人耳垂大厚代表什么 |
| 魑魅魍魉什么意思 | 高血压一级是什么意思 | 月加厷念什么 | 什么是瘦马 | 猪肚子和什么煲汤最好 |
| 背道而驰什么意思 | 经常头痛是什么原因 | 尿毒症有什么症状 | 为什么会有蟑螂 | 身体出汗是什么原因 |
| 乳房疼痛吃什么消炎药hcv8jop4ns3r.cn | 肚子饿了为什么会叫hcv8jop8ns1r.cn | 女人为什么比男人长寿zhiyanzhang.com | 防晒衣什么颜色最防晒hcv8jop8ns7r.cn | 什么方法可以快速排便hcv7jop6ns0r.cn |
| 两边太阳胀痛什么原因引起的hcv9jop7ns1r.cn | 心理素质差是什么原因hcv8jop9ns2r.cn | 额头上长小疙瘩是什么原因hcv8jop1ns2r.cn | 心五行属什么hcv9jop2ns8r.cn | 送对象什么礼物好hcv9jop4ns6r.cn |
| 7月24是什么星座cj623037.com | 为什么身体没力气也没有精神hcv8jop7ns4r.cn | 1930年属什么hcv9jop0ns3r.cn | ggo是什么意思hcv8jop4ns7r.cn | 农历4月是什么月hcv9jop1ns3r.cn |
| 上尉是什么级别hcv8jop1ns0r.cn | 孕20周做什么检查hcv9jop3ns5r.cn | 内裤发黄是什么原因hcv9jop3ns0r.cn | 女人左下腹部疼痛什么原因hcv8jop1ns6r.cn | 空腹喝啤酒有什么危害hcv7jop9ns5r.cn |