Fix confusing wording wrt adding new features to RECs #1004 #1026
Conversation
fantasai
added
the
Agenda+
fantasai
force-pushed
the
rec-feature-note
branch
from
776381b to
79ea26e
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor fix to avoid implying non-normative text.
The new "Such …" sentence I think belongs in a guide (the Guide?), not The Process, and IMO unnecessarily adds length to the Process (which I believe we are trying to continuously shrink and simplify over time).
| to a [=Recommendation=] that does not [=allow new features=], | ||
| W3C <em class="rfc2119">must</em> create a new [=technical report=], | ||
| following the full process of <a href="#rec-advance">advancing a technical report to Recommendation</a> | ||
| Note: When a [=Recommendation=] does not [=allow new features=], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Note: When a [=Recommendation=] does not [=allow new features=], | |
| When a [=Recommendation=] does not [=allow new features=], |
Drop "Note: " because in typical W3C contexts it implies a non-normative sentence/paragraph/section, and I don't think that was the intent of this change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, that was actually intended. :) This paragraph is identifying an implication of existing normative text.
|
@tantek I understand what you're getting at, but also this has been a frequent point of confusion, so I think the examples help. But I could be persuaded otherwise depending what others think. CC @nigelmegitt |
Addresses #1004
Preview | Diff