W3C Process Document

8 Appendix

Cover · Next · Previous

8.1 W3C Process Working Group

This document was initially prepared by the Process Working Group (WG) of the World Wide Web Consortium. The Working Group was elected by the W3C Advisory Committee representatives on September 16, 1996 and consisted of the following individuals:

The Team Members involved in producing this document were:

8.2 Summary of Process Schedules

ProcessInitiated byIntended forTime to next stepNext step
Activity proposal Director Advisory Committee Four weeks Director's decision. If approved, Director issues calls for participation in Working Groups. Director sends comments received during the review period within one week after end of review.
Working Group Meeting announcement. Working Group Chair Working Group (notably Team contact) Eight weeks for face-to-face. One week for remote. Meeting, followed by publication of minutes.
Working Draft Last call A Working Group Chair All Working Group Chairs Generally two to four weeks Proposed Recommendation
Proposed Recommendation Director Advisory Committee At least four weeks Director's decision, which comes at least two weeks later. If approved, becomes a Recommendation.
Submission request Member W3C Team After Submission package is validated by Team, one to four weeks. Director's acknowledgment or rejection of request.
Call for nomination to Advisory Board Director Advisory Committee Specified in call. Call for votes from Director to Advisory Committee. Duration of election period specified in call.
Workshop announcement W3C Team Advisory Committee Eight weeks if for information gathering, six weeks if to deal with pressing issues. Workshop.

8.3 Information at the W3C Web site

The home page of the W3C Web site: http://www.w3.org/

8.3.1 Public information

[PUB5] How to Join W3C:
[PUB6] Full Membership Agreement:
[PUB7] Affiliate Membership Agreement:
[PUB8] The list of current W3C Members:
[PUB9] The list of Activities currently being pursued by W3C:
[PUB10] The list of acknowledged Submissions:
[PUB11] The list of public technical reports (and other publications):
[PUB12] List of briefing packages.
In this version of the Process Document, there is no public reference to the list of briefing packages.
[PUB13] Submission package overview:
[PUB14] People of W3C:
[PUB15] W3C vision statement:
[PUB16] W3C Offices:
[PUB17] Invited expert and collaborators agreement:
[PUB18] W3C Document Notice:
[PUB19] W3C Technical Reports and Specifications Release Form
[PUB20] Information about translations of W3C documents

8.3.2 Member-only information

[MEM1] The list of current Advisory Committee representatives:
[MEM2] The list of available mailing lists:
[MEM3] The calendar of all scheduled official events of W3C:
[MEM4] The Newsletter:
[MEM5] Information about future and past Advisory Committee meetings:
[MEM6] Member help page:
[MEM7] Activities, Activity Lead, and groups organized by domain:
[MEM8] The Newswire:
[MEM9] The "Art of Consensus", a guidebook for W3C Working Group Chairs and other Collaborators:
[MEM10] Role of the Team Contact
[MEM11] How to publish W3C Technical Reports
[MEM12] How to start Member review of Proposed Recommendation

8.4 W3C and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)

The work of the IETF in places may overlap with the Activities of W3C. To allow clear progress, it is important for the role and domain of operation of each organization to be well defined and for communication between the two organizations to be efficient.

8.4.1 Role

The IETF works in an entirely open manner: meetings are generally attended, by email or physically, by anyone who wishes to participate. W3C, by contrast, is a Consortium of organizations that pay a Membership fee to support its operation (Membership is open to any organization). W3C has a process for assigning defined groups of committed experts to solve specific tasks.

As a result of these differences, IETF working groups tend to be effective both for the collection of ideas from a wide community, and also, when a specification exists, for providing criticism from a wide community. W3C is effective at producing, in a timely fashion, a specification that is likely (though not guaranteed) to meet the needs of its Members and the community.

8.4.2 Domain

The IETF addresses specifically issues of Internet protocols while W3C addresses the architecture of the Web -- the global information space that is implemented by using Internet protocols and other tools.

W3C defines the Web, Web documents, and protocols for their access and distribution. W3C is the home of the HTML specifications, for which it brings together expertise in many areas outside the IETF. It also addresses the questions of intellectual ownership of documents, rating schemes for documents and the transport of labels (PICS), and in general the metadata that is information about documents.

W3C intends not to be involved with the specifications for IP, TCP, or DNS, for security at any of these levels; with SMTP or NNTP protocols.

The HTTP protocol has been developed with W3C participation in an IETF context. This is the area in which IETF experience has been very relevant, and W3C effort is provided in order to help attain a timely result.

The URI scheme is the central specification of the Web. Although it is fairly stable, its extension, where necessary, lies within the scope of W3C Activities. It would be appropriate for W3C to include a new naming scheme developed by a third party (or the IETF) into the URI specification.

Every effort must be made for open communication and cooperation between W3C and the IETF so that, for example, two versions of a specification do not evolve independently as a result of separate work. Such fragmentation thwarts the principle of interoperability so vital to W3C success.

8.5 Partnerships

This section summarizes the partnerships (potential or other) for the W3C with other organizations. A partnership begins with a written agreement between W3C and some other organization that specifies how the partners will participate in a given Activity.

Each table entry below addresses the following questions:

  1. What would working with this organization contribute to W3C or the Web? Why is this important?
  2. Is the organization truly interested in working with the W3C? Would W3C have to coerce them into participating?
  3. What is a liaison going to cost (in dollars, staff time, research, travel, etc.) and where do these resources come from?
  4. What expertise can W3C offer?
Groups Relevant to W3C Contribution to W3C or Web Interested in working with W3C Cost of Liaison Special expertise from W3C
IETF Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Infrastructure Relationship needs to be focused, identify specific groups and people to meet. High, knowledge of the organization is well known, but a close relationship needs to be built.

Resource costs are high to participate in IETF Working Groups under their organizational structures rather than the W3C's.

HTTP, URNs, Naming
ISO Standards - International Organization for Standardization;
includes national bodies standards
ISO TC 46;
Standards for Thesauri, Indexing, Bibliographies, and Searching.

ISO TC 68;
Banking, Securities, and Other Financial Services.

ISO TC 154;
Documents and data elements in administration, commerce, and industry.

ISO TC 187;
Color Notations

Character encoding

US Z39.50;
US (ANSI) standard identical to ISO standard 23950 (see "ISO TC 46") for search and retrieval, widely deployed in the bibliographic and information retrieval community.

Payment Negotiation Working Group

ISO/IEC JTC1; Information Processing,

Subcommittees: SC21, SC24, SC29, SC30, and SC34

Yes, W3C was requested to provide liaison in HTML and graphics. High, organization is complex. W3C Advisory Committee meeting June 1996 was against following the PAS ISO procedure.

ISO organizations run at a different speed.

HTML and graphics.
OMG Object Management Group Consortium CORBA, IIOP, Enterprise Users Strong Yes Low Architecture Areas, HTTP
OASIS-open SGML Standardization and Expertise Medium/Low Low; primarily requires knowledge of relevant activities as they happen and making comments about possible changes to SGML. HTML, XML
The Open Group (X/Open, Uniforum, OSF, SAG) Active X, Validation Suites, Reference Implementations Strong Yes Low Architecture and User Interface Areas, PICS
Unicode Consortium Character encoding, character properties Yes Low Markup, Language tagging, etc.
WAP Forum - Wireless Application Protocol Protocols for mobile devices Strong Yes Low, because Mobile Interest Group already exists See WAP Forum - W3C Cooperation White Paper
Government Regulators, European Commission, US Govt., G7,... Regulatory Control Depends High, personal visits to each government and group are required. Technology and Society Areas

8.6 Potential Partner Organizations