WHATWG’s Living Standards and the W3C / WHATWG collaboration agreement give insight on how to do continuous standard development while fulfilling requirements of the W3C REC track.
Issue #79 raised the following specs:
The AB has resolved to address the continuous development on an accelerated basis and the W3C Process Community Group has explored several approaches.
Problem: Patents licenses are only granted after REC, but implementations needed before REC.
Goal: Secure patent commitments earlier, without depending on meeting REC requirements.
Currently: We secure promises to license at each exclusion opportunity, but only licenses at REC.
Proposal: Secure licensing, rather than just commitments to license:
Key Questions:
Can we change patent policy? Do we need to experiment? Answer AC survey on Patent Policy!
How early should we apply full-specification licenses? CRs only, or WD updates well? Do we need contribution licensing, or only full-spec licensing?
Problem: Republishing WDs is automatic given WG approval, but republishing CR requires Director’s Approval. Most republication requests, however, are routine and don’t need much scrutiny.
Proposal: Allow automatic Director’s Approval for straightforward cases, e.g.
Currently: Updating a CR requires external verification of work and triggers a patent exclusion period. Accommodating these reviews slows updates. (Even if we speed up Director’s approvals, legal teams want infrequent patent reviews.)
Problem: CR publications lag, often significantly, behind WG’s current-work, reducing value and authoritativeness of W3C’s official publications.
Goal: Address use case of Living Standards: always up-to-date, periodic patent commitment
Proposal: Decouple update publications from review publications:
Problem: Fixing errors in REC requires returning entire spec to CR, re-doing Process from there.
Goal: Make it easy to propose, review, and incorporate changes without destabilizing the REC.
Proposal: Create an errata proposal + approval process:
Currently: REC specifications cannot accept new features; a new level of the technology must be specified starting with a new FPWD.
Proposal: Re-use REC maintenance process for incorporating proposed changes (above) to also allow incorporating proposed additions into specifications chartered to be extensible.
Note: Current proposal requires distinguishing extensible RECs from feature-stable RECs.
Key Question: Do we want to allow a W3C Recommendation to evolve with new features?
Problem: Registries need lightweight update process, possible maintenance outside a WG.
Currently: W3C only has NOTEs, which have no normative status, and RECs, which are hard to update.
Proposal: New type of technical report for W3C Registries:
Process CG originally tried developing an alternative track proposal. Concerns motivating it were:
Reasons to adopt this Proposal:
Goal: Allow experimentation on alternate track instead of applying changes to the REC-track.
Proposal:
Key Question: Would we benefit from an Alternative Experimental Track?
Working Groups:
Horizontal Groups:
Advisory Committee:
Implementers and Users: