Initial stab at living CR/REC #151
Conversation
plehegar
added
the
enhancement
|
Note this related thread re charter language: w3c/charter-drafts#275 |
|
@plehegar meta-remark: under the 'Reviewers' section (at the top of the left pane), you have a link to "Convert to draft" this PR. It will be explicitly marked as a draft, and I guess that the merge button will not be available. |
Co-authored-by: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
|
I think I addressed the initial feedback (thank you @nigelmegitt ). I feel more comfortable asking for feedback from a wider audience now (team and process CG, then Chairs) |
Co-authored-by: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Co-authored-by: chaals <chaals@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: chaals <chaals@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: chaals <chaals@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: chaals <chaals@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: chaals <chaals@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: chaals <chaals@users.noreply.github.com>
|
It would be useful to characterize when one "uses" living CR and when one uses REC. For example, if a spec is destined to be used by a regulatory body, or used by vendors to pour silicon to put it into a chip - you really need a REC. If you are working on spec-text that rapidly evolves on an annual basis, it may be preferable to use living CR. |
(this is work in progress)