[template] should a REC allow new features goes to the Standards section or the Normative Specifications section?

[siusin]

The charter assistant puts all RECs in a Standards section, to indicate they are in the stable version.

How about those RECs allowing new features? The group still publishes new versions of these specs frequently.

[plehegar]

imho, the safest approach here is to always list the latest Call for Exclusion for ALL RECs, whether or not the REC allows new features or not.

[svgeesus]

Related:

• [template] Consistent markup between the charter template and the deliverables tool #385

[svgeesus]

The charter assistant currently makes two lists of normative specifications:

1. Draft and Candidate Standards
2. Standards

The Process calls for

The title, stable URL, and publication date of the document that was used as the basis for its most recent Exclusion Opportunity as per the W3C Patent Policy [PATENT-POLICY]. (labeled “Exclusion Draft”);)

which leads us to the Patent Policy, which loops back to Process by defining a Patent Review Draft:

For the purpose of this policy, “Specification” refers to a W3C technical report published on the Recommendation Track, see [PROCESS]. “Patent Review Draft refers to a version of a W3C Specification defined as such by the W3C Process [PROCESS], that is published for patent review and exclusion.

Sadly the Process, in the section The W3C Recommendation Track shows a flow diagram which ends with Rec. No steps past Rec are defined, which makes Patent Review Draft unclear for Recs with proposed or candidate additions.

I recall complaining about this in the past and being told to make a second diagram showing post-Rec stages. I can't now find that discussion, and the related text should in any case be created by (or at least reviewed by) the Process CG.

However Pubrules is at least clear, under Publishing a Recommendation with proposed additions (new features) it states:

The W3C Communications Team sends the transition announcement to [email protected] and [email protected] and on the W3C home page. The Call for Exclusions and the Advisory Committee review are started.

So a Rec with proposed additions triggers an Exclusion Opportunity and is thus a Patent Review Draft. So if one has been published, the charter assistant should list the Exclusion Draft.

It should also not call such a Rec a Draft, but that is a separate issue.

So to my mind, the list of Standards should include any Exclusion Recs that have been published. I don't know if they do, currently.

[svgeesus]

Okay, the charter assistant fails to note these. Here is an example:

Media Queries Level 3
W3C Recommendation, 21 May 2024

included a proposed correction, as announced (Member-only link)

so it was a Patent Review Rec, and the charter assistant for CSS does not list it.

[svgeesus]

@vivienlacourba @deniak it seems that the charter assistant needs to be updated to find these Patent Review Recs and to list them in the Standards section (and not call them drafts).

[deniak]

Indeed, the charter assistant wasn't updated after the process started allow REC amendments.
What would be the expectation here? Most of the time, if not all the time, the Patent Review document will be the latest published version we already list. Should we simply add a link to the CfE and mention the exclusion period?

[svgeesus]

Related:

• Confusing inconsistencies between stages of the REC track for documents and for amendments process#938

[svgeesus]

Most of the time, if not all the time, the Patent Review document will be the latest published version we already list.

Agreed.

Should we simply add a link to the CfE and mention the exclusion period?

I think that would be more consistent with the Draft and Candidate Standards section.