Publication Policies

Resources

Tools

Select your steps :

About This Document

This resource describes the internal W3C Technical Report publication processes. A companion document provides more information about roles involved in these processes and interactions with the W3C Communications Team.

Steps for transition to publication of a publication of an publication of a LABEL (update with substantive changes) (update with substantive corrections) (update with editorial changes)

Once the Process Document requirements for the transition to LABEL have been satisfied (see section 6.3.1 section 6.4 section 6.4.1 section 6.5 section 6.7.2 section 6.6 or section 6.9 for restoring a Recommendation section 6.9 section 6.9), W3C follows the steps described below to complete the transition. Once the Group determined that the requirements of section 6.3.2 apply, the W3C follows the steps described below to update a STATUS. Once the Group determined that the requirements of section 6.4.1 do NOT apply, the W3C follows the steps described below to update a STATUS. W3C follows the steps described below for transition to a First Public STATUS. These steps are grouped by theme. They are not strictly ordered; in practice, some steps are completed in parallel. For instance, groups often manage the transition request/meeting steps in parallel with the publication request steps.

Note: If your specification involves (or updates) an Internet Media Type, before the transition to First Public STATUS, see also How to Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Specification to review the entire Internet Media Type registration process. for information about what you should do several months before advancing to Candidate Recommendation. for information about alerting the W3C liaisons to the IETF so that they may request formal review and approval by the IESG. for information about how the W3C liaisons to the IETF track the registration process.

Note: If your specification defines (or updates) an XPointer Scheme, before the transition to STATUS, please register the scheme in the the W3C XPointer Scheme Registry.

Negotiation of Review Schedule
  • The Chair negotiates the wide review schedule with the Chairs of groups with dependencies (on chairs@w3.org) before going to Candidate Recommendation. The Group MUST show that the specification has received wide review in order to move to Candidate Recommendation. See the considerations, guidelines and best practices that groups should follow to get early and wide review of a document.
Transition request
  • If an individual made a request to the relevant Working Group, or the TAG if such a group does not exist, to obsoleterescind a Recommendation, and the request was not answered within 90 days, the individual should send his request to webreq@w3.org, cc'ing plh@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org.
  • If an individual made a request to the relevant Working Group, or the maintenance contact if such a group does not exist, to update a Recommendation, and the request was not answered within 90 days, the individual should send his request to webreq@w3.org, cc'ing plh@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org.
  • At least one week prior to an expected decision from or meeting with the Director, the The Chair (or Team Contact)Team Contact sends a transition request to plh@w3.org (as Project Management Lead), cc'ing w3t-comm@w3.org and chairs@w3.org. Note: For the TAG, no First Public Working Draft transition request is required; the request is assumed to be approved by the Director, who Chairs the TAG. sends a transition request to ph@w3.org (as Industry Lead) or wseltzer@w3.org (as Strategy Lead), cc'ing w3t-comm@w3.org and chairs@w3.org. sends a transition request to the Director (and anyone working with the Director on transitions): timbl@w3.org, ralph@w3.org, cc'ing plh@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org, and chairs@w3.org. We recommend explicitly addressing the expected reviewer(s) by name in the body of the message.
  • The Team Contact MAY need to organize a transition meeting with the Director to discuss the request. Note: When the transition request indicates unambiguous support and sufficient wide review for the transition, the Director waives the need for a telephone call in general. Note: When Advisory Committee review indicates unambiguous support, the Director waives the need for a telephone call in general.
  • The Project Management Industry or Strategy Lead approve the transition request. The Lead MAY ask the Director (or someone assigned by the Director) to take responsibility for approving the transition request. The Director approves the transition request.
Publication and Transition Planning
Publication Planning
Publication Planning
  • The Document Contact prepares the document in accordance with pubrules (use the "Echidna-ready" check). Note: Director approval is required for some namespace URIs; see URIs for W3C Namespaces for details.
  • If the publication is the result of stopping work on a specification, the Document Contact alerts the Webmaster at webreq@w3.org, optionally cc'ing w3c-archive@w3.org (which has a Member-visible archive).
  • If the publication is the result of returning a document to a Working Group for further work, the Team Contact alerts the W3C Communications Team by sending to w3t-comm@w3.org a draft announcement for the Membership (required by section 6.1.1 of the Process) that explains why the document was returned for further work.
  • The Document Contact prepares the document in accordance with pubrules and develops a proposed publication schedule, taking into account possible publishing moratoria. The title page date is chosen based on the anticipated publication schedule. Note: Director approval is required for some namespace URIs; see URIs for W3C Namespaces for details.
  • Before sending the publication request, the Document Contact SHOULD install the document in its final location. The Document Contact MAY request publication of a document that is not yet installed at its final location, but in this case MUST provide installation instructions to the Webmaster. If a document to be published consists of more than one HTML file (i.e., there are style sheets, schemas, etc.), all materials MUST be made available to the Webmaster from a single directory (which may include subdirectories).
  • The Document Contact sends a publication request to the Webmaster at webreq@w3.org, optionally cc'ing w3c-archive@w3.org (which has a Member-visible archive). See below for details about scheduling a publication, and specifically requirements about advance notice to the Webmaster. Note: If the publication is the result of returning a document to a Working Group for further work, the Team Contact alerts the W3C Communications Team by sending to w3t-comm@w3.org a draft announcement for the Membership (required by section 6.1.1 of the Process) that explains why the document was returned for further work.
Form and Mailing List Preparation
Mailing List Preparation
GitHub Preparation
  • The Team Contact ensures that there is a public archived place (github or mailing list) available for comments; (for mailing list, use the mailing list request form). The Team Contact also ensures that there is a mailing list with a Team-only archive available for AC Representative comments; this list is cited from the review form.
  • The Team Contact ensures that there is a public archived github repository available for comments.
  • The Team Contact builds a STATUS review form that the Project Manager reviews for correctness. Note: At the current time, WBS review forms are generated from installed documents, but before the Webmaster completes publication.
  • The Team Contact sends a draft transition announcement to the Communications Team at w3t-comm@w3.org.
Publication and Transition Announcement
Publication
Transition Announcement
  • The Webmaster completes publication and notifies the Chair and Team Contact of publication, cc'ing webreq@w3.org and w3t-comm@w3.org. Note: If the publication is the result of returning a document to a Working Group for further work, the Webmaster alerts the W3C Communications Team.
  • The Document Contact publishes the document using the W3C automatic system.
  • After coordination with the Communications Team on the transition announcement timing (especially those accompanied by press releases; see more about interactions with the Communications Team), the Webmaster completes publication and notifies the person who sent the request, cc'ing webreq@w3.org and w3t-comm@w3.org. Publication SHOULD precede the transition announcement by only a small amount of time.
  • In order to facilitate peer review, once the document has been published, the Chair sends a transition announcement to chairs@w3.org and the group's public mailing list.
  • The W3C Communications Team sends a transition announcement to w3c-ac-members@w3.org and chairs@w3.org and on the W3C home page.
  • The Chair or Team Contact(s) SHOULD forward the announcement to the Working Group's public mailing list taking caution not to send any Member-confidential information to a public list.
  • If this publication is the result of returning a document to a Working Group for further work, the Communications Team announces that to w3c-ac-members@w3.org and chairs@w3.org.

Note: Instructions for publication of an Ordinary STATUS are included for convenience even though this is not a Recommendation Track transition as defined in the W3C Process.

Note: STATUS is not a maturity level defined in the W3C Process but is described as a proposal before the next step.

Please take note of the W3C Process Document limitations regarding when to publish an updated STATUS without Director's approval:

Please take note of the W3C Process Document provisions regarding when to publish an update to a STATUS with Director's approval:

Here are the W3C Process Document transition requirements for a STATUS:

Note: The Working Group SHOULD NOT publish a (new) revision of a STATUS before the end of the (current) review period.


Transition request

Tip: When updating an existing Candidate Recommendation, focus your new transition on what changed since the previous Candidate Recommendation transition. There is no need to repeat information included in the previous transition.

Tip: When proposing an update of an existing Recommendation, focus your new transition on what parts of the errata of the Recommendation is intended to be applied.

The message subject line and body SHOULD identify this as a "transition request"; see above for where to send the request. An First Public STATUS transition request MUST include:

  1. Document title, URIs, and estimated publication date.
  2. The document Abstract and Status sections, either by reference (e.g., the URI to the document) or direct inclusion.
  3. A statement whether or not the group considers the document to be a delta specification.
  1. Document title and URIs of the W3C Recommendation.
  2. The request must include rationale for obsoletingrescinding the Recommendation.

Furthermore, the transition request provides evidence that the group has satisfied the transition requirements. The questions and observations in the subsections below provide examples of what SHOULD be in the transition request to help the Project Management Lead Director assess whether the group has satisfied the transition requirements. The transition request SHOULD be organized so that it serves as the basis for the agenda of the meeting with the Director.

The goal of the transition request is to secure an archived record of the Project Management Industry or Strategy Lead' approval of the title, and shortname. In the past, shortnames have been changed between versions, and documents have been split and merged between versions. A conservative approach is to treat a merged or split document like a first publication.

The Team Contact(s) generally present the new draft for the entire W3C Team as soon as possible after the transition request (and possibly before Project Management Industry or Strategy Lead approval). The length of the presentation varies (from "more than a lightning talk" to a Project Review) depending on the technical or political complexity of the specification.

Note: The Director SHOULD NOT schedule a Proposed Recommendation review period to end less than 10 days after the end of an open "exclusion opportunity" as defined in the W3C Patent Policy (per section 5.2 of the W3C Process), or if there are any Patent Advisory Groups (PAGs) currently discussing the document (per the Patent Policy FAQ, question 29).

Link to previous transition

  • The request must include a link to the previous Candidate Recommendation transition request.

Decision to request transition

  • The request must should record the group's decision (or the individual request or the support of the Advisory Committee)(or the individual request if no Working Group) to request advancement (e.g., a link to meeting minutes or email announcing the group's decision).

Changes

  • The group must provide public documentation of all substantive changes to the technical report since the previous publication. Include, for example, a link to a change log where important changes are highlighted.
  • The group must not include substantive changes to the technical report since the previous publication (except for the removal of feature at risk). Include, for example, a link to a change log where most important changes are highlighted. Otherwise, the Working Group must republish the document at an earlier status.
  • The group should provide public documentation of changes that are not substantive.
  • The group should provide public documentation of editorial corrections.
  • Were features at risk removed?
  • If this specification is a revision of a previous Recommendation, does the document clearly state the relation of this version to the previous one? For instance, does it supersede or obsolete the previous Recommendation? Where is this stated (e.g., the status section)? Does the specification explain whether authors should create content according to the previous or current version? Does the specification explain whether processors should continue to process content according to the previous Recommendation?
  • If there will be two Recommendations of different major revision numbers, does the newer specification explain the relationship?
  • The group should address all recorded errata.

Requirements satisfied

  • The Group must show that the specification has met all Working Group requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been deferred. Where are the requirements defined (e.g,. a charter or requirements document)?
  • The group should report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step. Are any requirements previously satisfied no longer satisfied? Are any requirements previously unsatisfied now satisfied?

Dependencies met (or not)

  • The group should report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
  • The group must document changes to dependencies during the development of the specification.
  • Does this specification have any normative references to W3C specifications that are not yet Proposed Recommendations? See Normative References Guidelines. Candidate Recommendations? Recommendations? Note: In general, documents do not advance to Recommendation with normative references to W3C specifications that are not yet Recommendations. See Normative References Guidelines.
  • Does this specification have any normative references to a Rescinded Recommendation? Documents must not include normative references to a Rescinded Recommendation.
  • Have other Groups confirmed that dependencies have been satisfied? For example, does the issues list show that these groups are satisfied as a result of their review of the document? Are there dependencies that have not been satisfied?
  • Is there evidence that additional dependencies related to implementation have been satisfied?

Wide Review

  • The group must show that the specification has received wide review (see section 6.2.3.1)
  • The group must show that the changes have received wide review (see section 6.2.3.1)
  • The group must show that the changes to the document have received wide review (see section 6.2.3.1).
  • The group may identify features in the document as "at risk".
  • Which are the groups with dependencies? Did they review the document?
  • Are the changes listed on the errata page of the Recommendation?
  • The group must show that the request to rescind has received wide review. If the Director is proposing to rescind or obsolete the Recommendation, the Director must show that the request to rescind or obsolete is based on public comment.
  • The group must show that the request to obsolete has received wide review. If the Director is proposing to obsolete the Recommendation, the Director must show that the request to obsolete is based on public comment.
  • Was there review from implementers?
  • Are the changes already deployed in implementations?
  • Was there review from Advisory Committee representatives?

Issues addressed

  • The group should address all recorded errata.

  • The group must formally address all issues raised about the document since the previous maturity level.
  • The group must show that all issues raised during the Candidate Recommendation review period other than by Advisory Committee representatives acting in their formal AC representative role have been formally addressed.
  • The group must identify any substantive issues raised since the close of the Candidate Recommendation review period by parties other than Advisory Committee representatives acting in their formal AC representative role.
  • Include a link to an issues list that indicates that the Group has been responsive to reviewers who have raised issues since the previous transition. The Director's expectations are that, as a document advances, the Working Group will keep an increasingly precise record of how it has formally addressed each issue. The Director is responsible for addressing those issues raised by the Advisory Committee during a Proposed Recommendation review period. Typically the Director consults with the group. Per the Process Document, section 6.2.3, the Director MAY respond to the reviewer after the close of the Proposed Recommendation review period (e.g., in the announcement of the transition to Recommendation). For substantive issues, especially substantive or serious technical issues the Team Contact should endeavor to understand the reviewer's issues and try to resolve them before sending the Director a request to advance to Recommendation. The request to advance to Recommendation should document the success or failure of these negotiations.
  • For changes in the issues list since the previous transition:
    • Highlight issues where the Group has declined to make a change, with rationale. See also Clarification: tables summarizing review Tim Berners-Lee (Tue, Feb 15 2000).
    • Highlight issues where the Group has not satisfied a reviewer and has either not yet responded to the reviewer, or the reviewer has not yet acknowledged the Group's decision.
    • Show, without highlighting:
      • Issues where the Working Group has accepted a proposed change.
      • Issues where the Working Group has clarified the specification to the satisfaction of the reviewer.

Formal Objections

  • The group must provide public documentation of any Formal Objections. For each Objection, is there a public record of the decision, the objection, and attempts to satisfy the reviewer?

Implementation

  • The group must document how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated. Are there tests or test suites available that will allow the WG to demonstrate/evaluate that features have been implemented (e.g., a matrix showing how different pieces or classes of software implement different features)? Is the expectation to show two complete implementations (e.g., there are two software instances, each of which conforms) or to show that each feature is implemented twice in some piece of software?
  • The group must show adequate implementation experience except where an exception is approved by the Director. Were the expectations set at Candidate Recommendation met?
  • The request MUST Include a link to a final implementation report, or, if there is no such report, rationale why the Director should approve the request nonetheless.
  • What are the Group's plans for showing implementation of optional features? In general, the Director expects mandatory features and optional features that affect interoperability to be handled similarly. Optional features that are truly optional (i.e., that do not affect interoperability) may require less implementability testing.
  • Does the WG have additional implementation experience that will help demonstrate interoperability (e.g., has there been an interoperability day or workshop? Is one planned?)?
  • The group should provide information about implementations known to the Working Group. See the definition of implementation experience in section 6.2.4 of the Process.

Patent disclosures

  • Has anything changed on the patent disclosure page since the previous transition? Have there been any incomplete or problematic disclosures?
  • Are there any open exclusion opportunities? The Director SHOULD NOT schedule a Proposed Recommendation review period to end less than 10 days after the end of an open "exclusion opportunity" as defined in the W3C Patent Policy (per section 5.2.1 of the W3C Process), or if there are any Patent Advisory Groups (PAGs) currently discussing the document (per the Patent Policy FAQ, question 29).
  • If the group is not using IPP: Does the disclosure page conform to the patent policy requirements?

Transition Meeting with the Director

For an STATUS transition, the Director may need to attend a transition meeting attended by:

The Team Contact is responsible for the execution of the following (under the supervision of the Project Management Lead):

  1. Scheduling the meeting. To allow chairs of WGs with dependencies and other commenters time to review the treatment of review comments in the disposition of comments document, the transition request MUST be sent a minimum of seven days prior to the transition meeting.
  2. Reserving a teleconference bridge.
  3. Choosing a scribe prior to the meeting.
  4. Ensuring that the meeting record is distributed to the participants. The meeting record (typically a link to an IRC log) must include the decision, and should highlight all recommendations. The meeting record should be sent to all participants attendees, and MUST be cc'ed to w3t-archive@w3.org.

Sample agenda

Administrative
  1. Is everyone here?
  2. Confirmation of Chair, Scribe
  3. Are any changes required to the agenda?
Review of the transition request
In particular, review those items highlighted as requiring the Director's attention.
Decision
The Director assesses whether the W3C Process has been followed and whether there is sufficient consensus to support the transition request. In most cases the decision to make the transition is made during the teleconference. However the decision could take up to two weeks if any difficult issues arise during the meeting. The Director may delegate the W3C decision; see Team processes for TR publications.
Next steps
  1. If the decision is negative: how do we repair the problem? what happens next? who does what? Note: If documents have been copied to /TR space, please remove them.
  2. If the decision is positive: how do we announce this decision? when? what is the plan and schedule for any communications opportunities, including Member testimonials? any action items from this meeting?

Some reasons for declining a transition request

Per section 6.9, in some conditions, the Director is required to accept the transition request.

Per section 6.1.1 of the Process, "The Director MUST inform the Advisory Committee and Working Group Chairs when a Working Group's request for a specification to advance in maturity level is declined and the specification is returned to a Working Group for further work."

Publication Request

A publication request is an assertion from the Document Contact that the document satisfies the pubrules requirements. The subject line and body SHOULD identify this as a "publication request"; see above for where to send the request. A publication request MUST include the following information.

  1. Document title and URI(s). Document URI requirements are described in Publication Rules.
  2. One or two sentences of description of the specification (for communication purposes on the "current status" pages). The sentence may be taken from the abstract. As an example, see status section for specifications related to mobile web authoring. These status pages, as their name suggests, let the community know about relationships among close specifications, what to use and not to use, how things fit together, etc. Contact the Comm Team with questions at w3t-comm@w3.org. Note: The Webmaster may also ask the Document Contact for assistance in categorizing the specification in an existing (or new) group on the TR page. If there is no change in the description since the previous publication, this can be ommitted.
  3. A proposed publication schedule.
  4. If there has been a previous Candidate Recommendation, whether the only change is that text has been deleted; If so, W3C can skip the Patent Policy Exclusion (see the Patent Policy FAQ).
  5. Indicate if the publication is the result of stopping work on a specification.
  6. Since there has been a previous Candidate Recommendation and the changes are only editorial, W3C can skip the Patent Policy Exclusion (see the Patent Policy FAQ). If not, a proper transition request with the approval of the Director will be needed.
  7. Record of approval of the transition request.
  8. Record of W3M decision to close the group.
  9. Evidence that publication is in accordance with expectations set by the group charter (e.g., quote the charter).

Note: Someone from the W3C management team (usually the Project Management Lead) SHOULD be aware of the status of the document.

Scheduling Publication

Note: STATUSs published through the W3C automatic system do not need to get scheduled with the Webmaster and are not subjected to publishing moratoria.

The Document Contact negotiates a publication date with the Webmaster. Each publication request SHOULD propose a publication date. If the request does not include a proposed publication date, the Webmaster MAY consider the title page date as the proposed publication date.

The Webmaster publishes on Tuesdays and Thursdays (cf. the announcement to chairs). Regarding advance notice:

If the Webmaster finds errors during the publication process, he will endeavor to publish on the desired date, but he MAY also postpone publication to the next available publication date in order to resolve issues. In general, it will not be necessary to change the title page date of a document that is published a couple of days later than planned. If it becomes apparent that a publication date will be well after a title page date, the Webmaster SHOULD ask the Document Contact to resubmit a revised document with a more current title page date.

When scheduling publication, please note that publishing "blackouts" occur at the end of the calendar year and around certain W3C events such as AC meetings and All-Group meetings. The Communications Team announces these publishing moratoria with approximately six months notice. The announcements are linked from the Chairs' Guidebook.

Publication

In order to ensure publication standards, upon receiving a publication request the Webmaster SHALL make a best effort to verify that the document satisfies the pubrules requirements except for the accessibility requirements of section 1.6. The Webmaster SHALL publish the document (cf. the Webmaster's guide) if the following conditions have been met:

  1. The publication request is complete, and
  2. The document satisfies the pubrules requirements verified by the Webmaster. Note: The updated version may remove the main body of the document.

Otherwise the Webmaster SHALL NOT publish. In this case, the Webmaster SHALL provide details to the person who sent the request about which requirements have not been satisfied.

The Webmaster SHALL NOT publish the document until the date on the title page or later. The Webmaster publishes the document by updating the appropriate technical report index and updating the latest version link, and then announcing publication as described above.

Transition Announcement

An First Public STATUS transition announcement MUST include the following information:

  1. That this is a STATUS transition announcement.
  2. Document title, URIs of the W3C Recommendation.
  3. Instructions for providing feedback.
  4. Review end date.
  5. Link to information about the review; this is the link to an online review form (WBS) created by the Team Contact. The following information from the transition request MUST be available (generally in the form):
    • title, abstract, and status. Note: It is useful to draw the reviewer's attention in the review form to important information, even if some of that information is duplicated in the status section due to pubrules requirements.
    • implementation information
    • information about changes
    • information about wide review

    Note: if you created the review form (WBS) at Candidate Recommmendation phase, update the review form as needed, making it clear what the updates are, and update the closing date for the review.

  6. Information about any Formal Objections.
  7. Link to a public (home) page for the group that produced the document.

Please use the Team-only transition announcement template as a starting point.

  1. That this is a STATUS transition announcement.
  2. Document title, URIs.
  3. Instructions for providing feedback.
  4. A link to the group's transition request.
  5. Review end date.
  6. Link to information about the Advisory Committee members review; this is the link to an online review form (WBS) created by the Team Contact. The following information from the transition request MUST be available (generally in the form):
    • title, abstract, and status. Note: It is useful to draw the reviewer's attention in the review form to important information, even if some of that information is duplicated in the status section due to pubrules requirements.
    • implementation information
    • information about changes
    • information about wide review
    • closing date should be far in the future, so that it doesn't end before the transition to Proposed Recommendation. The AC review during PR will reuse the same form, where the description and the closing date are updated.
  7. The names of groups with dependencies, explicitly inviting review from them.
  8. Information about any Formal Objections.
  9. Whether this publication is the result of returning a document to a working group for further work as a Candidate Recommendation.
  10. Document abstract and status.

Please use the Team-only transition announcement template as a starting point.

The Candidate Recommendation transition announcement SHOULD provide information about where people can learn about issues raised during the Candidate Recommendation review period (e.g., a link to an issues list).

The Candidate Recommendation transition announcement MAY indicate priority feedback items. Please note that as of Candidate Recommendation, no technical issues should be open, even though the Working Group may request feedback on particular choices they have made.

  1. That this is an STATUS transition announcement.
  2. Document title, URIs.
  3. A paragraph introducing the work, usually the Abstract.
  4. Indication, in general terms, of level of support of Membership. Note: As a policy, the Team does not announce detailed results (i.e., numbers of reviews) of a Proposed Recommendation review to the Membership or Public, except for information regarding formal objections.
  5. Information about any Formal Objections.
  6. Any additional information for companion document(s).

Please use the Team-only transition announcement template as a starting point.

  1. That this is a First Public STATUS transition announcement.
  2. Document title, URIs.
  3. Instructions for providing feedback.
  4. A reference to the group's transition request.

Call for Exclusions

The Patent Policy FAQ clarifies when Call for Exclusions are sent out.

The Team sends a Call for Exclusion to participants. The exclusion opportunity lasts 150 days. At approximately 90 days, The Team sends out a reminder with a pointer to the "Reference Draft".

If the document was published within 90 days of the First Public Working Draft, it becomes the new Reference Draft for the Call for Exclusions started at the time of the First Public Working Draft publication. Exclusions are with respect to the set of features in this new STATUS.

A Working Group under the W3C Patent Policy publishes a STATUS. The Team sends the second exclusion opportunity. The exclusion opportunity lasts 60 days. Any exclusions are with respect to new features in the STATUS added since the exclusion opportunity of the First Public Working Draft.

The Working Group changes the document substantially after STATUS and published a new STATUS. The Team sends a new exclusion opportunity. It lasts 60 days. Exclusions are with respect to new features in the specification since the previous exclusion opportunity, i.e., the previous LABEL.

The Working Group updates the document substantially since the Recommendation and published a STATUS. The Team sends a exclusion opportunity. It lasts 60 days. Exclusions are with respect to new features in the specification since the previous exclusion opportunity, i.e., the one applying to the previous Recommendation.


Page owned and process managed by Philippe Le H├ęgaret and Ralph Swick on behalf of the W3C Director.
Philippe Le Hégaret, editor
This document has been constructed by merging information from several "How to" documents created by Dan Connolly, Al Gilman, Ian Jacobs, and others.
This document is maintained on GitHub. Issues are welcome.