Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> Recommendation has always been the end of the line (those who think we > should give up the ghost and just use "standard" can now fight with those > who are appalled at the W3C as a body deeming anything standard). I'd think "end of the line" would be "obsolete, don't use in new software". So I'll disagree about that point ... :) Anyway, it's clear there are errata-tracking and other spec upkeep processes that happen after REC, even if W3C doesn't emphasize them ... I think a "real standard" (vs W3C REC) will normally have had those later processes applied. > The Candidate Recommendation was supposed to be "we think it's cooked, go > out and tell us if we're wrong", but the vague manner in which CR was and > still is defined has turned it into a "last, last call" instead of a > serious or lengthy implementation and kick-the-tires phase. Some of us think that the W3C processes change too often to rely on for any real standards work. That "implement-and-kick-tires phase" is a pretty new concept for W3C, and as you pointed out it's not being applied universally. I think a more consistent "implement and abuse" experimental phase would be a good general policy. In fact, I think many folk here would likely agree that for some specs, that process doesn't really start until REC ... which is another reason the "post-REC" part of the W3C spec lifecycle may be worth some additional (scientific :) scrutiny. Some folk have suggested that the natural completion of the W3C process would be like a butterfly breaking its chrysalis ... to fly as a real standard, with full emphasis on conformance and interop between implementations. (And maybe hosted by some accredited standards body!) - Dave
|
