Publication Policies

Resources

Tools

Also On This Page →

on document identified by this URI , then view result requirements and sample.

Checker uses values below; please verify.

Document status and these characteristics:

Working Group Patent Policy:

Relation to previous Recommendations of same major revision:

Three Services: Pubrules, Checker, Sample

This resource provides three services:

  1. Pubrules filter, which shows only the relevant requirements for publication of a W3C Technical Report, Submission, or Incubator Report.
  2. Checker, available in two flavors:
  3. A sample of what the front of the document should look like given the chosen characteristics

Publication requirements and checker test results are shown below. The requirements and template are not shown in "Checker (Auto)" mode until you have run the checker.

A companion document includes a glossary, roles, and history of this document. A comparison of requirements across all document types is available.

For information about process requirements (how to request a transition, how to request publication, etc.), see How to Organize a Recommendation Track Transition. If you would like to discuss technical report production informally among your peers and get the latest tips and techniques, try the spec-prod mailing list (archive). Document Contacts should consult the W3C Manual of Style for guidance on additional publication topics and conventions.

Document Requirements

The Document Contact MUST verify that the requirements in this section (listed in "document order") have been satisfied before requesting publication. How to Organize a Recommendation Track Transition explains the remainder of the publication process.

See the sample below that has been generated by the parameters you have chosen in the form at the top of this document, summarized here:

Highlighted test results appear after each provision. Several resulttypes require attention: Errors, Warnings, and those marked "Please verify." For the latter, some test results include a link to a tool to help verify the requirement has been satisfied.

1. Normative Document Representation

  1. normativeVersionTest At least one normative representation MUST be available for requests that use the "This Version" URI. More than one normative representation MAY be delivered in response to such requests. A "This Version" URI MUST NOT be used to identify a non-normative representation.
    Please verify manually; not tested.
  2. valideHTMLTestrecursive All normative representations MUST either:
    • validate as either HTML 4.x or as some version of XHTML that is a W3C Recommendation, or
    • (for non-Recommendations) validate as XHTML+RDFa; see RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing (Team Contacts please see the Communications Team to propose additional exceptions).
  3. valideBackwardTest At least one normative representation MUST identify itself as HTML 4.x, or XHTML 1.0, or (for non-Recommendations) XHTML+RDFa (for backwards compatibility).
    OK (found XHTML 1.0 Transitional) The W3C Markup Validation Service was used for the validation of this document.
  4. Visual styles SHOULD NOT vary significantly among normative alternatives.
    Please verify manually; not tested.
Note: Serving two representations at the "this version" URI is an assertion by W3C that the documents are equivalent for the purposes of conveying the requirements of the document. In practice, the Comm Team will not read each alternative to verify that this is the case. If the Communications Team learns of substantive discrepancies between normative alternatives, the W3C Head of Communications may request that the author no longer serve the alternative as normative.

2. Document Metadata

  1. goodStylesheetTestrecursive Each document MUST include the following absolute URI to identify a style sheet for this maturity level: http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-REC

    Include this source code:
    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-REC"/>

    OK
  2. lastStylesheetTestrecursive Any internal style sheets MUST be cascaded before this link; i.e., the internal style sheets MUST NOT override the W3C tech report styles.
    Is the last style sheet used the W3C one? OK
See also Style Guidelines for Group-Internal Drafts.

3. Front Matter

  1. divClassHeadTest The front matter MUST appear at the beginning of the body of the document, within <div class="head">. There is one exception to that requirement: the hr element after the copyright MAY appear inside or after the div element. Editors SHOULD NOT include other information in this section.
    Is there a <div class="head"> section? OK

Logos

  1. logoTest The document MUST include a link to the W3C logo identified below. The URI used to identify the logo MUST be absolute.
    W3C
    Include this source code:
    <a href="http://www.w3.org/"><img height="48" width="72" alt="W3C" src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/w3c_home"/></a>
    OK

Title, Date, Maturity Level

  1. titleTest The document's title MUST be in the title element and in an h1 element.
    OK (found "GRDDL Test Cases")
  2. Technical report version information, i.e., version and edition numbers.
    1. If a Recommendation modified in place, see the Comm Team's policy regarding in-place modification of W3C Technical Reports, otherwise
    2. See the (non-normative) Version Management in W3C Technical Reports for more information
    Please verify manually; not tested.
  3. dateTitleH2Test The document's status and date MUST be in an h2 element as follows (see also date syntax):
    <h2>W3C Recommendation 14 August 2007</h2>

    If this is a modified Recommendation that was modified in place or is a new edition, the document MUST include both the original publication date and the modification date. For example:

    <h2>W3C Recommendation 7 April 2004, 
        edited in place 19 August2004</h2>
    Is the dated status h2 title correct? OK (W3C Recommendation 11 September 2007)

Document Identifiers

  1. docIDFormat Document identifier information MUST be presented in a dl list, where each dt element marks up an identifier role ("This Version", "Latest Version", "Previous Version", etc.) and each dd element includes a link whose link text is the identifier.
    OK
  2. docIDOrder Document identifier information MUST be present in this order:
    OK
  3. docIDThisVersion The syntax of a "This Version" URI MUST be <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-shortname-2007MMDD/>.
    OK
  4. docIDLatestVersion The syntax of a "Latest Version" URI MUST be <http://www.w3.org/TR/shortname/>.
    Warning, the previous version doesn't seem to match with the current latest version (ETags differs : "1c4e3-435684e843240" / "1ab96-439dce2c51dc0").
  5. docIDDate The title page date and the date at the end of the "This Version" URI MUST match.
    OK

Editor/Author Information

  1. editorSectionTestThe editors'/authors' names MUST be listed. Affiliations and email addresses are OPTIONAL; email addresses are NOT RECOMMENDED. If an editor/author is acknowledged in an earlier version of this document and the individual's affiliation has since changed, list the individual using the notation "<name>, <affiliation> (until DD Month YYYY)". If the list of authors is very long (e.g., the entire Working Group), identify the authors in the acknowledgments section, linked from the head of the document. Distinguish any contributors from authors in the acknowledgments section.
    Is there an Editor or Author section in the head of the document? OK (Chimezie Ogbuji, )

Errata Information

  1. errataTest Immediately after the editors/authors' names, there MUST be a link to an errata document made with the following markup:

    <p>Please refer to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/..."><strong>errata</strong></a> for this document, which may include some normative corrections.</p>

    The order of the a and strong elements MAY be reversed. See also suggestions on errata page structure in the Manual of Style. Note: Do not put the errata document in TR space as the expectation is that we will not modify document in TR space after publication; see the policy for in-place modification of W3C Technical Reports.

    Is there a link to the errata after the authors and before the copyright? Error (did not find a link labeled "errata" in the first paragraph after the authors).

Links to non-normative document representations

  1. Authors MAY provide links to alternative (non-normative) representations or packages for the document. For instance:

    <p>This document is also available in these non-normative formats: <a href="REC-shortname-20020101.html">single HTML file</a>, <a href="REC-shortname-20020101.tgz">gzipped tar file of HTML</a>.</p>

    Please verify manually; not tested.

Translation Information

  1. translationTest There MUST be a link to a translations page. The RECOMMENDED markup is:

    <p>See also <a href=" http://www.w3.org/2003/03/Translations/byTechnology?technology=shortname"> <strong>translations</strong></a>.</p>

    See suggestions on translations in the manual of style.

    Is there a link to the translations after the authors and before the copyright? Error Link to translations not found.

Copyright Information

  1. copyrightTest The copyright MUST use the following markup (fill in with the appropriate year, years, or year range). The abbr element MAY be used in place of acronym.
    Include this source code:
    <p class="copyright"><a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright">Copyright</a> &copy; 2007 <a href="http://www.w3.org/"><acronym title="World Wide Web Consortium">W3C</acronym></a><sup>&reg;</sup> (<a href="http://www.csail.mit.edu/"><acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</acronym></a>, <a href="http://www.ercim.org/"><acronym title="European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics">ERCIM</acronym></a>, <a href="http://www.keio.ac.jp/">Keio</a>), All Rights Reserved. W3C <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Legal_Disclaimer">liability</a>, <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#W3C_Trademarks">trademark</a> and <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents">document use</a> rules apply.</p>
    OK (with date range 2007)
  2. hrAfterCopyrightTest A horizontal rule (hr) MUST follow the copyright.
    Is there a <hr/> after the copyright? OK

4. Document Abstract

  1. abstractTest There MUST be an abstract, labeled with an h2 element with content "Abstract" that follows the hr element.
    If there is an abstract, is it marked up by <h2> and is it at the right location (just after the hr)? OK

5. Document Status Section

  1. sotdTest There MUST be a status section that follows the abstract, labeled with an h2 element with content "Status of This Document". The Team maintains the status section of a document.
    Is there a status of the document and is it correctly marked up? OK
  2. boilerplateTRDocTest It MUST begin with the following boilerplate text:

    This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

    Include this source code:
    <p><em>This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/">W3C technical reports index</a> at http://www.w3.org/TR/.</em></p>
    OK
  3. datesFormatTest All dates MUST have the form DD Month YYYY. A leading zero in the day is OPTIONAL.
    Please verify manually; not tested.
  4. WGLinkTest It MUST include the name of the W3C group that produced the document. The name MUST be a link to a public page for the group.
    Is there a link to the Working Group home page in the status of the document? Error, no link to a Working Group page found. Note: If the Working Group has closed, the group home page may no longer be known to the checker even if the page itself still exists.
  5. mailingListNameTest It MUST include the name of a mailing list for comments that has a public archive.
    Please verify. Address found: (public-grddl-comments@w3.org, ) Does this mailing list have a public archive?
  6. mailingListLinkTest It MUST include a link to the public archive of that mailing list.
    Please verify. Found: (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2007Jun/att-0046/SV_MEETING_TITLE_--_6_Jun_2007.htm#item04, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/, ) Is this a link to the archive of the identified mailing list?
  7. implReportTest It SHOULD include either:
    • a link to an interoperability or implementation report if the Director used such a report as part of the decision to advance the specification, or
    • a statement that the Director's decision did not involve such a report.
    Please verify.Does the status section contain a link to an interoperability or implementation report? No candidate found (looking for links containing the word 'implementation' or 'interoperability'. Is another term used? Is there a link to a statement that no report is necessary?
  8. customParagraphTest It MUST include at least one customized paragraph. This section SHOULD include the title page date (i.e., the one next to the maturity level at the top of the document). These paragraphs SHOULD explain the publication context, including rationale and relationships to other work. See examples and more discussion in the Manual of Style.
    Please verify manually; not tested.
  9. changesListTest It MUST include a link to changes since the previous draft (e.g., a list of changes or a diff document or both; see the online HTML diff tool).
    Please verify manually; not tested.
  10. stabilityTest It MUST set expectations about the stability of the document. The RECOMMENDED text is:

    This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.

    Include this source code:
    <p>This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.</p>
    Error. Required boilerplate text not found. Instead found: p>This is an editor's draft, subject to change without notice.</p This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/. This document reconciles tests from other documents in the repository (see Acknowledgements) This document has been reviewed by W3C Members and other interested parties and has been endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited as a normative reference from other documents. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web. p>This July 16th 2007 release of the GRDDL Test Cases is a W3C Proposed Recommendation by the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/">W3C GRDDL Working Group</a> (part of the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/">Semantic Web Activity</a>). It has been widely reviewed and contributes to the requirements documented in <a href="http://www.w3.org/2006/07/grddl-charter.html">GRDDL Charter</a>; The tests within have been well implemented by a variety of software.</p A pair of tests within contribute to addressing Web Architecture issue: xmlFunctions-34 and the notion of an elaborated infoset In June 6th, 2007 the Working Group resolved to postpone issue-faithful-infoset in anticipation of ongoing dialog about the issue and the XML Processing Model Working Groups work to answer questions about transformation signaling and a default processing model. p>This document enters a Proposed Recommendation review period. W3C Advisory Committee Members are invited to send formal review comments until 13 August 2007</p> <p>Formal reviews from Advisory Committee Representatives can be submitted <a href="http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/myQuestionnaires">here</a>. Otherwise, please send comments about this document to <a href="mailto:public-grddl-comments@w3.org">public-grddl-comments@w3.org</a> (with <a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-comments/">public archive</a>). A <a href="#changelog">log of changes</a> is maintained for the convenience of editors and reviewers.</p> <p>Publication as a Proposed Recommendation does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.</p Please send comments about this document to public-grddl-comments@w3.org (with public archive). A log of changes is maintained for the convenience of editors and reviewers. This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy. Note: the zip archive does not include tests which require network connectivity in order to properly calculate their GRDDL results. In addition and for convenience, two manifest files are included which only contain the normative tests: grddl-tests-normative.n3 (expressed in Turtle) and grddl-tests-normative.rdf (expressed in RDF/XML)
  11. patPolReqTest It MUST include this text related to patent policy requirements (with suitable links inserted; see guidelines for linking to disclosure pages):

    This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent.

    Include this source code:
    <p> This document was produced by a group operating under the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/">5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy</a>. W3C maintains a <a rel="disclosure" href="@@URI to IPP status or other page@@">public list of any patent disclosures</a> made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. </p>

    Note: Contact the Communications Team for suitable adaptations in the case where a document has been published jointly by more than one group. In the adaptation, be sure that the text for informative-only specs or specs not going to Rec is the same as the standard text.

    Error Although the boilerplate text is correct, no Working Group home page was identified, so consistency with IPP cannot be determined.
  12. knownDisclosureNumberTest It MUST NOT indicate the number of known disclosures at the time of publication.
    Please verify manually; not tested.

6. Table of Contents

  1. tocTest There SHOULD be a table of contents after the status section, labeled with an h2 element with content "Table of Contents".
    OK

7. Document Body

  1. headingWithoutIDTestrecursive Every marked-up section and subsection of the document MUST have a target anchor. A section is identified by a heading element (h1-h6). The anchor may be specified using an id (or name if an a element is used) attribute on any of the following: the heading element itself, the parent div element of the heading element (where the heading element is the first child of the div), a descendant of the heading element, or an a immediately preceding the heading element.
    OK
  2. brokenLinkTest The document MUST NOT have any broken internal links or broken links to other resources at w3.org. The document SHOULD NOT have any other broken links.
    Please verify using Link Checker
  3. cssValideTestrecursive The document MUST NOT have any style sheet errors.
  4. namespacesTestrecursive All proposed XML namespaces created by the publication of the document MUST follow URIs for W3C Namespaces.
    Error The Namespaces Checker was used for this test. The following is a list of URIs that might be (broken) namespace URIs. Note: If they are not namespace URIs, please just let the Webmaster know in your publication request.
    http://127.0.0.1:6543 (1 occurrence)
    -> 502 (Could not connect)
  5. wcagTest The document(s) MUST conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, Level AA. Note: You may wish to consult the customizable quick reference to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0.

8. Compound Documents

  1. compoundFilesLocationTest If the document is compound (i.e., if it consists of more than one file), all the files MUST be under a directory /TR/2007/REC-shortname-2007MMDD/
    Please verify manually; not tested.
  2. compoundOverviewTestThe main page SHOULD be called Overview.html.
    Warning, document not found.
  3. compoundTestAll other files MUST be reachable by links from the document.
    Warning No links found to additional components of a multipart document.

Sample: Your Document Head Should Look Like This

Given the parameters you have chosen, the head of your document should resemble the instance shown below. Note however that you will still need to provide a custom paragraph in the status section, and you may also have to adjust some of the recommended language according to your publication context. The sample shown does not illustrate all of the requirements of pubrules: it does not illustrate every possible publication context or requirements beyond those of the document head and status section.

The following appear in the head element but are not shown here:

W3C

SampleML 1.0

W3C Recommendation DD Month 2007

...if edited in place, append...", edited in place DD Month YYYY"

This version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-sampleml1-2007MMDD/
Latest SampleML 1 version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/sampleml1
Latest SampleML Recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/sample
Previous version:
<previous version uri>
Authors:
Nadia Coolpod (MyOrganization)
Dirk Silvertongue (Example.Com)

Please refer to the errata for this document, which may include some normative corrections.

This document is also available in these non-normative formats: ...links to formats here....

See also translations.


Abstract

....abstract text...

Status of this document

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

Please see the Working Group's implementation report (...or a statement that no report was used as part of the Director's decision...).

...Your custom paragraph here; see examples ...

This document was developed by the Sample Working Group. A complete list of changes to this document is available.

Please send comments about this document to public-mailing-list@w3.org (with public archive).

This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent.

Table of Contents

...table of contents...

Ian Jacobs, W3C Head of Communications.
This document is based on contributions from Ian Jacobs, Matthieu Fuzellier, Dan Connolly, Chris Lilley, Hugo Haas, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux, Susan Lesch, Vivien Lacourba, and others. A filter is applied to the document source to provide specific views.
Created 3 Feb 2000.
$Id: 13-pubrules-src.html,v 1.581 2009/09/30 22:41:42 ijacobs Exp $