Publication Policies

Resources

Tools

Select your steps :

Note: The first Candidate Recommendation publication after approval of a transition request is also considered a Candidate Recommendation Snapshot.

Not sure what's your next step? Try our step finder and look at milestones calculator.

About This Document

This resource describes the internal W3C Technical Report publication processes. A companion document provides more information about roles involved in these processes and interactions with the W3C Communications Team.

Steps for transition to an update request for a publication of a publication of an LABEL Snapshot (intended to update a Recommendation) Draft (to become an Amended Recommendation) (with candidate corrections) (with candidate additions) (with editorial changes) (incorporating candidate corrections) (incorporating proposed additions)

Once the Process Document requirements for the transition to LABEL have been satisfied (see section 6.2.5 section 6.2.7 section 6.2.8.1 section 6.2.9 section 6.2.11.3 section 6.2.11.2 section 6.2.11.4 section 6.2.10 or section 6.2.12.4 for restoring a Recommendation section 6.2.12.4 section 6.2.12.4), W3C follows the steps described below to complete the transition. Once the Group determined that the requirements of section 6.2.6 apply, the W3C follows the steps described below to update a STATUS. Once the Group determined that the requirements of section 6.2.8.2 have been satisfied, the Working Group follows the steps described below to publish a STATUS. W3C follows the steps described below for transition to a First Public STATUS. These steps are grouped by theme. They are not strictly ordered; in practice, some steps are completed in parallel. For instance, groups often manage the transition request/meeting steps in parallel with the publication request steps.

Note: If your specification involves (or updates) an Internet Media Type, before the transition to First Public STATUS, see also How to Register an Internet Media Type for a W3C Specification to review the entire Internet Media Type registration process. for information about what you should do several months before advancing to Candidate Recommendation. for information about alerting the W3C liaisons to the IETF so that they may request formal review and approval by the IESG. for information about how the W3C liaisons to the IETF track the registration process.

Note: If your specification defines (or updates) an XPointer Scheme, before the transition to STATUS, please register the scheme in the W3C XPointer Scheme Registry.

Negotiation of Review Schedule
  • The Chair negotiates the wide review schedule with the Chairs of groups with dependencies (on chairs@w3.org) before going to STATUS. The Group MUST show that the specification has received wide review in order to move to Candidate Recommendation. The Group MUST show that the changes have received wide review in order to publish the STATUS. See the considerations, guidelines and best practices that groups should follow to get early and wide review of a document.
Transition request
Update request
  • If an individual made a request to the relevant Working Group, or the TAG (using w3ctag/obsoletion) if such a group does not exist, to obsolete or to supersederescind a Recommendation, and the request was not answered within 90 days, the individual should send his request to webreq@w3.org, cc'ing plh@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org.
  • If an individual made a request to the relevant Working Group, or the maintenance contact if such a group does not exist, to update a Recommendation, and the request was not answered within 90 days, the individual should create a transition request in w3c/transitions.
  • At least one week prior to an expected decision from or meeting with the Director, the The Document ContactTeam ContactMaintainer Contact creates a transition request in w3c/transitions. For the purpose of the automatic publishing system, it's important that the title of the issue ends with the shortname of your specification, thus you will need one single issue for each specification. Note: For the TAG, no First Public Working Draft transition request is required; the request is assumed to be approved by the Director, who Chairs the TAG. sends a transition request to the Director: timbl@w3.org, ralph@w3.org, cc'ing plh@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org. An issue is also created in w3c/transitions (for tracking purposes). A public archive of transition requests is available (since October 2019).
  • Following an initial review by the Director, the Team ContactMaintainer Contact MAY be asked to organize a transition meeting with the Director to discuss the request.
  • The Project Management Industry or Strategy Lead approve the transition request. The Lead MAY ask the Director (or someone assigned by the Director) to take responsibility for approving the transition request. The Director approves the transition request. Approvals are expected to appear as an issue comment "Transition approved." in w3c/transitions and the label 'Awaiting Publication' will need to be set. In most cases the decision to approve the transition is made on Fridays.
Publication Planning
  • The Document Contact ensures that there is a public archived github repository available for comments.
  • The Document Contact prepares the document in accordance with pubrules (use the "Echidna-ready" check).
  • If the publication is the result of stopping work on a specification, the Document Contact alerts the Webmaster at webreq@w3.org, optionally cc'ing w3c-archive@w3.org (which has a Member-visible archive).
  • The Document Contact ensures that there is a public archived place (github or mailing list) available for comments; (for mailing list, the Team Contact uses the mailing list request form).
  • The Document Contact ensures that there is a public archived github repository available for comments.
  • The Document Contact prepares the document in accordance with pubrules and develops a proposed publication schedule, taking into account possible publishing moratoria. The title page date is chosen based on the anticipated publication schedule.
  • Before sending the publication request, the Team Contact SHOULD install the document in its final location. The Document Contact MAY request publication of a document that is not yet installed at its final location, but in this case MUST provide installation instructions to the Webmaster. If a document to be published consists of more than one HTML file (i.e., there are style sheets, schemas, etc.), all materials MUST be made available to the Webmaster from a single directory (which may include subdirectories).
  • The Document Contact sends a publication request to the Webmaster at webreq@w3.org, optionally cc'ing w3c-archive@w3.org (which has a Member-visible archive). See below for details about scheduling a publication, and specifically requirements about advance notice to the Webmaster. If the publication is the result of stopping work on a specification, the Document Contact alerts the Webmaster as well.
Form and Announcement Preparation
Announcement Preparation
  • The Document Contact sends a draft transition announcement to the Communications Team at w3t-comm@w3.org, which explains why the document was returned for further work.
  • The Team Contact builds a STATUS review form that the Project Manager reviews for correctness. The Team Contact ensures that there is a mailing list with a Team-only archive available for AC Representative comments; this list is cited from the review form. Note: At the current time, WBS review forms are generated from installed documents, but before the Webmaster completes publication.
  • The Document Contact sends a draft transition announcement to the Communications Team at w3t-comm@w3.org. If the publication is the result of returning a document to a Working Group for further work, the announcement explains why the document was returned for further work.
  • The Communications Team approves the draft using an issue comment "Draft transition approved" in w3c/transitions
Publication and Transition Announcement
Publication and Update Announcement
Publication
Transition Announcement
  • The Webmaster completes publication and notifies the Chair and Team Contact of publication, cc'ing webreq@w3.org and w3t-comm@w3.org.
  • The Document Contact publishes the document using the W3C automatic system. The parameter editorial=true must be used to assert that only editorial changes were made.
  • After coordination with the Communications Team on the transition announcement timing (especially those accompanied by press releases; see more about interactions with the Communications Team), the Webmaster completes publication and notifies the person who sent the request, cc'ing webreq@w3.org and w3t-comm@w3.org. Publication SHOULD precede the transition announcement by only a small amount of time.
  • The W3C Communications Team makes an announcement on the W3C home page.
  • The W3C Communications Team sends the transition announcement to w3c-ac-members@w3.org and chairs@w3.org.
  • Since September 2015, the Communications Team no longer posts homepage news for regular WDs, unless explicitely requested.
  • The W3C Communications Team sends the transition announcement to w3c-ac-members@w3.org and chairs@w3.org and on the W3C home page.
  • The W3C Communications Team sends the update announcement to chairs@w3.org and on the W3C home page.
  • The Chair or Team Contact(s) SHOULD forward the announcement to the Working Group's public mailing list taking caution not to send any Member-confidential information to a public list.
  • The Document Contact SHOULD forward the announcement to the Working Group's public mailing list.
  • The Team Contact SHOULD forward the announcement to the appropriate public forum taking caution not to send any Member-confidential information to a public list.

Note: Instructions for publication of an Ordinary STATUS are included for convenience even though this is not a Recommendation Track transition as defined in the W3C Process.

Note: STATUS is not a maturity level defined in the W3C Process but is described as a proposal before the next step.


Transition Requirements for STATUS

The decision to advance a document to Recommendation is a W3C Decision.

The Working GroupW3C:

  • must record the group’sindividual(s) decision to request advancement.

    Provide a link to meeting minutes, github issues, or email announcing the decision.

  • must obtain Director approval.

    Submit a transition request.

  • must publicly document all new features (class 4 changes) to the technical report since the previous publication.

    Include a link to a change log where new features are highlighted, highlight them in the Status of the Document.

  • must not contain new features (class 4 changes) to the technical report since the Recommendation.
  • must publicly document if other substantive changes (class 3 changes) have been made, and should document the details of such changes.
    • For example, include a link to a change log where important changes are highlighted.
    • If this specification is a revision of a previous Recommendation, does the document clearly state the relation of this version to the previous one? For instance, does it obsolete or supersede a previous Recommendation? Where is this stated (e.g., the status section)? Does the specification explain whether authors should create content according to the previous or current version? Does the specification explain whether processors should continue to process content according to the previous Recommendation?
    • If there will be two Recommendations of different major revision numbers, does the newer specification explain the relationship?
  • should publicly document if editorial changes have been made, and may document the details of such changes.
  • must formally address all issues raised about the document since the previous maturity level.
    • Include a link to an issues list, such as GitHub issues, that indicates that the group has been responsive to reviewers who have raised issues since the previous transition. The Director's expectations are that, as a document advances, there will be an increasingly precise record of how it has formally addressed each issue.
    • For changes in the issues list since the previous transition:
      • Highlight issues where the Group has declined to make a change, with rationale. See also Clarification: tables summarizing review, Tim Berners-Lee (Tue, Feb 15 2000).
      • Highlight issues where the Group has not satisfied a reviewer and has either not yet responded to the reviewer, or the reviewer has not yet acknowledged the Group's decision.
      • Show, without highlighting:
        • Issues where the Working Group has accepted a proposed change.
        • Issues where the Working Group has clarified the specification to the satisfaction of the reviewer.
  • should formally address all errata raised about the document since the Recommendation.

    Include a link to an issues list, such as GitHub issues, that indicates that errata have been responded.

  • must provide public documentation of any Formal Objections.

    Provide link(s) to the objection, attempts to satisfy the reviewer, and a public record of the decision.

  • should report which, if any, of the Working Group'sindividual(s) requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.
  • should report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
    • In general, documents do not advance to Proposed Recommendation with normative references to other specifications that are considered unstable. See also Normative References Guidelines.
    • Documents must not include normative references to a Rescinded/Obsolete/Superseded Recommendation.
  • should provide information about implementations known to the Working Groupindividual(s).

  • must provide information about implementations known to the individual(s).

    See implementation experience

  • must provide information about implementations known to the Working Groupindividual(s).

    Unless this information changed since the previous transition, indicate "No change".

    Include a link to a final implementation report, or, if there is no such report, rationale why the Director should approve the request nonetheless.

Requirements for revising a STATUS

A Working Group should publish a Working Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes to the previous published document that would benefit from review beyond the Working Group.

If 6 months elapse without significant changes to a specification, a Working Group should publish a revised Working Draft, whose status section should indicate reasons for the lack of change.

To publish a revision of a Working draft, a Working Group:

  • must record the group’s decision to request publication. Consensus is not required, as this is a procedural step,

    Provide a link to meeting minutes, github issues, or email announcing the decision. The decision may be applicable to one or more revisions.

    This link should be given to the W3C automatic system using the decision parameter.

  • must provide public documentation of substantive changes to the technical report since the previous Working Draft,
  • should provide public documentation of significant editorial changes to the technical report since the previous step,
  • should report which, if any, of the Working Group’s requirements for this document have changed since the previous step,
  • should report any changes in dependencies with other groups,

Requirements for updating a STATUS

WARNING: If your existing Recommendation was not approved for accepting new features, you are not allowed to follow these steps. You MUST follow the First Public Working Draft steps instead.

The decision to incorporate candidate changes in a Recommendation is a W3C Decision.

The Working Group:

The W3C:

  • must obtain Director approval, or fulfill the criteria for Streamlined Publication Approval.

    Submit an update request.

  • must record the group’s decision to request the update.

    Provide a link to meeting minutes, github issues, or email announcing the decision.

  • must show that the changes have received wide review.
    • Was the public requested to review the changes (such as announcement from a previous publication)?
    • Which are the groups with dependencies, per the Group's charter, and did they review the document?
    • Were the horizontal groups given proper opportunities to review subtantive changes? Are there any *-needs-resolution issue pending?
    • Was there early review from implementers? Are the changes already deployed in implementations?
    • Streamlined Publication Approval requires, for each of the W3C Horizontal Groups, if the Horizontal Review Group has made available a set criteria under which their review is not necessary, the Working Group must document that these criteria have been fulfilled. Otherwise, the Working Group must show that review from that group has been solicited and received.
  • Streamlined Publication Approval requires the group to formally address:
    • all issues raised against the document that resulted in changes since the previous publication

    • all issues raised against changes since the previous publication

    • all issues raised against the document that were closed since the previous publication with no change to the document

    The response to each of these issues must be to the satisfaction of the person who raised it: their proposal has been accepted, or a compromise has been found, or they accepted the Working Group’s rationale for rejecting it. This implies no pending *-needs-resolution issues, and no pending PAG conclusions.

  • must provide public documentation of any Formal Objections.
    • Provide link(s) to the objection, attempts to satisfy the reviewer, and a public record of the decision.
    • Streamlined Publication Approval requires no formal objection have been registered.
  • must publicly document of all new features (class 4 changes) to the technical report since the previous publication.

    Include a link to a change log where new features are highlighted, highlight them in the Status of the Document.

  • must publicly document if other substantive changes (class 3 changes) have been made, and should document the details of such changes.

    For example, include a link to a change log where important changes are highlighted.

  • should publicly document if editorial changes changes have been made, and may document the details of such changes.
  • must show that the revised specification meets all Working Group requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been deferred,
    • Where are the requirements defined (e.g,. a charter or requirements document)?
    • Are any requirements previously satisfied no longer satisfied? Are any requirements previously unsatisfied now satisfied?
    • Streamlined Publication Approval requires no changes to Working Group requirements.
  • should report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for this document have changed since the previous step.
    • Streamlined Publication Approval requires no changes to Working Group requirements.
  • should report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
  • should provide information about implementations known to the Working Group.
  • must show that the specification has met all Working Groupindividual(s) requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed or been deferred,
    • Where are the requirements defined (e.g,. a charter or requirements document)?
    • Are any requirements previously satisfied no longer satisfied? Are any requirements previously unsatisfied now satisfied?
  • must document changes to dependencies during the development of the specification,
    • Does this specification have any normative references to other specifications that are not yet stable? The Director's expectations are that, as a document advances, there will be an increasingly need for normative referenced materials to be scrutinized. See Normative References Guidelines.
    • Does this specification have any normative references to a Rescinded/Obsolete/Superseded Recommendation? Documents must not include normative references to a Rescinded/Obsolete/Superseded Recommendation.
    • Have other Groups confirmed that dependencies have been satisfied? For example, does the issues list show that these groups are satisfied as a result of their review of the document? Are there dependencies that have not been satisfied?
  • must document how adequate implementation experience will be demonstrated,
    • Are there tests or test suites available that will allow the WG to demonstrate/evaluate that features have been implemented (e.g., a matrix showing how different pieces or classes of software implement different features)? Is the expectation to show two complete implementations (e.g., there are two software instances, each of which conforms) or to show that each feature is implemented twice in some piece of software?
    • What are the Group's plans for showing implementation of optional features? In general, the Director expects mandatory features and optional features that affect interoperability to be handled similarly. Optional features that are truly optional (i.e., that do not affect interoperability) may require less implementability testing.
    • Does the WG have additional implementation experience that will help demonstrate interoperability (e.g., has there been an interoperability day or workshop? Is one planned?)?
  • may identify features in the document as at risk. These features may be removed before advancement to Proposed Recommendation without a requirement to publish a new Candidate Recommendation.

    If any, the list of features at-risk must appear in the Status of the Document.

  • must specify the deadline for comments, which must be at least 28 days after publication, and should be longer for complex documents, and,

    This deadline must appear in the Status of the Document.

  • must show that the specification has received wide review.
    • Make sure to look at How to do Wide Review
    • Was the public requested to review the document (such as announcement from a previous publication)?
    • Which are the groups with dependencies, per the Group's charter, and did they review the document?
    • Were the horizontal groups given proper opportunities to review subtantive changes? Are there any *-needs-resolution issue pending? How recently were the reviews done?
    • Was there early review from implementers? Are the changes already deployed in implementations?

Requirements for publishing a STATUS

A Working Group should publish an Update Draft to the W3C Technical Reports page when there have been significant changes to the previous published document that would benefit from review beyond the Working Group.

The Working Group:

Updating a STATUS with editorial changes

The Working Group:

Updating a STATUS with candidate changes

WARNING: If your existing Recommendation was not approved for accepting new features, you are not allowed to follow these steps. You MUST follow the First Public Working Draft steps instead.

The Working Group:

The status information:

Requirements for requesting a STATUS

The request:

The Director must then submit the request to the Advisory Committee for review.

Transition requirements to STATUS

The W3C:

Transition requestUpdate Request

Tip: When updating an existing Candidate Recommendation, focus your new request on what changed since the previous Candidate Recommendation transition. There is no need to repeat information included in the previous transition.

An First Public STATUS transitionupdate request MUST include:

  1. Document title, URIs, and estimated publication date.
  2. The document Abstract and Status sections, either by reference (e.g., the URL to the document) or direct inclusion.
  3. A statement whether or not the group considers the document to be a delta specification.
  4. Fulfill the requirements for the Advancement on the Recommendation Track.
  5. Fulfill the requesting the STATUS.
  6. Fulfill the requirements for the update request.
  7. Has anything changed on the patent disclosure page since the previous transition? Have there been any incomplete or problematic disclosures?

Publication Request

A publication request is an assertion from the Document Contact that the document satisfies the pubrules requirementsis ready for publication. The subject line and body SHOULD identify this as a "publication request"; see above for where to send the request. A publication request MUST include the following information.

  1. Document title and URI(s). Document URI requirements are described in Publication Rules.
  2. One or two sentences of description of the specification (for communication purposes on the cover pages in /TR). If ommited, the description will match the first paragraph of the abstract. As an example, see this cover page on TTML. These cover pages, as their name suggests, let the community know about relationships among close specifications, what to use and not to use, how things fit together, etc. Note: The Webmaster may also ask the Document Contact for assistance in categorizing the specification in an existing (or new) group on the TR page and assiging tags. If there is no change in the description since the previous publication, this can be omitted.
  3. If needed, an update to the description used on the cover pages in /TR as well as tags.
  4. A proposed publication schedule.
  5. If there has been a previous Candidate Recommendation, whether the only change is that text has been deleted; If so, W3C can skip the Patent Policy Exclusion (see the Patent Policy FAQ).
  6. Indicate if the publication is the result of stopping work on a specification (aka "retired").
  7. Since there has been a previous Candidate Recommendation and the changes are only editorial, W3C can skip the Patent Policy Exclusion (see the Patent Policy FAQ). If not, a proper transition request with the approval of the Director will be needed.
  8. Record of approval of the transition request.
  9. Record of approval of the update request.
  10. Record of W3M decision to close the group.
  11. Evidence that publication is in accordance with expectations set by the group charter (e.g., quote the charter).

Note: Someone from the W3C management team (usually the Project Management Lead) SHOULD be aware of the status of the document.

Scheduling Publication

Tip: STATUSs published through the W3C automatic system do not need to get scheduled with the Webmaster and are not subjected to publishing moratoria.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Director requires a minimum of 7 days period between the transition request and the publication. This allows other Groups or outside individuals to review the transition request and may formally object within this period. While the Director strives to address transitions within this 7 days period, delays due to transition issues or competing Director's priorities are not unheard of and may increase the length of the period needed. Group participants are expected to raise objections within the Group prior to the transition request.

The Document Contact negotiates a publication date with the Webmaster. Each publication request SHOULD propose a publication date. If the request does not include a proposed publication date, the Webmaster MAY consider the title page date as the proposed publication date.

The Webmaster publishes on Tuesdays and Thursdays (cf. the announcement to chairs). Regarding advance notice:

If the Webmaster finds errors during the publication process, he will endeavor to publish on the desired date, but he MAY also postpone publication to the next available publication date in order to resolve issues. In general, it will not be necessary to change the title page date of a document that is published a couple of days later than planned. If it becomes apparent that a publication date will be well after a title page date, the Webmaster SHOULD ask the Document Contact to resubmit a revised document with a more current title page date.

When scheduling publication, please note that publishing "blackouts" occur at the end of the calendar year and around certain W3C events such as AC meetings and All-Group meetings. The Communications Team announces these publishing moratoria with approximately six months notice. The announcements are linked from the Chairs' Guidebook.

Publication

In order to ensure publication standards, upon receiving a publication request the Webmaster SHALL make a best effort to verify that the document satisfies the pubrules requirements except for the accessibility requirements of section 7. The Webmaster SHALL publish the document (cf. the Webmaster's guide) if the following conditions have been met:

  1. The publication request is complete, and
  2. The document satisfies the pubrules requirements verified by the Webmaster.

In order to ensure publication standards, upon receiving a publication request the Webmaster SHALL make a best effort to verify that the document satisfies the minimum of the pubrules requirements. The Webmaster SHALL publish the document (cf. the Webmaster's guide) if the following conditions have been met:

  1. The publication request is complete, and
  2. The document indicates clearly its new status verified by the Webmaster. The updated version may remove the main body of the document.

Otherwise the Webmaster SHALL NOT publish. In this case, the Webmaster SHALL provide details to the person who sent the request about which requirements have not been satisfied.

The Webmaster SHALL NOT publish the document until the date on the title page or later. The Webmaster publishes the document by updating the appropriate technical report index and updating the latest version link, and then announcing publication as described above.

Transition Announcement

An First Public STATUS transition announcement MUST include the following information:

  1. That this is a document returning to Working Draft announcement.
  2. Document title, URIs.
  3. Instructions for providing feedback.
  4. Explanation for the document returning to Working Draft for further work.
  5. Document abstract and status.

The announcement SHOULD provide information about where people can learn about issues raised during the Candidate or Proposed Recommendation review period (e.g., a link to an issues list).

The announcement MAY indicate priority feedback items.

  1. That this is a STATUS transition announcement.
  2. Document title, URIs of the W3C Recommendation.
  3. Instructions for providing feedback.
  4. Review end date.
  5. Link to information about the review; this is the link to an online review form (WBS) created by the Team Contact. The following information from the transition request MUST be available (generally in the form):
    • title, abstract, and status. Note: It is useful to draw the reviewer's attention in the review form to important information, even if some of that information is duplicated in the status section due to pubrules requirements.
    • implementation information
    • information about changes
    • information about obsoleting or superseding previous Recommendations, if applicable. This avoids sending an additional WBS survey just for the purpose of obsoleting/superseding a Recommendation.
    • information about wide review
  6. Information about any Formal Objections.
  7. Link to a public (home) page for the group that produced the document.

Please use the Team-only transition announcement template as a starting point.

  1. That this is a STATUS transition announcement.
  2. Document title, URIs.
  3. Instructions for providing feedback.
  4. A link to the group's transition request.
  5. Review end date.
  6. The names of groups with dependencies, explicitly inviting review from them.
  7. Information about any Formal Objections.
  8. Whether this publication is the result of returning a document to a working group for further work as a Candidate Recommendation.
  9. Document abstract and status.

Please use the Team-only transition announcement template as a starting point.

The Candidate Recommendation transition announcement SHOULD provide information about where people can learn about issues raised during the Candidate Recommendation review period (e.g., a link to an issues list).

The Candidate Recommendation transition announcement MAY indicate priority feedback items.

  1. That this is an STATUS transition announcement.
  2. Document title, URIs.
  3. A paragraph introducing the work, usually the Abstract.
  4. Indication, in general terms, of level of support of Membership. Note: As a policy, the Team does not announce detailed results (i.e., numbers of reviews) of a Proposed Recommendation review to the Membership or Public, except for information regarding formal objections.
  5. Information about any Formal Objections.
  6. Any additional information for companion document(s).

Please use the Team-only transition announcement template as a starting point.

  1. That this is a First Public STATUS transition announcement.
  2. Document title, URIs.
  3. Instructions for providing feedback.
  4. A reference to the group's transition request.

Call for Exclusions

The Patent Policy FAQ clarifies when Call for Exclusions are sent out.

The Team sends a Call for Exclusion to participants. The exclusion opportunity lasts 150 days. At approximately 90 days, The Team sends out a reminder with a pointer to the "Patent Review Draft".

If the document was published within 90 days of the First Public Working Draft, it becomes the new Patent Review Draft for the Call for Exclusions started at the time of the First Public Working Draft publication. Exclusions are with respect to the set of features in this new STATUS.

A Working Group under the W3C Patent Policy publishes a STATUS. The Team sends the second exclusion opportunity. The exclusion opportunity lasts 60 days. Any exclusions are with respect to new features in the STATUS added since the exclusion opportunity of the First Public Working Draft.

The Working Group changes the document substantially after STATUS and published a new STATUS. The Team sends a new exclusion opportunity. It lasts 60 days. Exclusions are with respect to new features in the specification since the previous exclusion opportunity, i.e., the previous LABEL.

The Working Group updates the document substantially since the Recommendation and published a STATUS. The Team sends a exclusion opportunity. It lasts 60 days. Exclusions are with respect to new features in the specification since the previous exclusion opportunity, i.e., the one applying to the previous Recommendation.

The Working Group proposes to update the document substantially since the Recommendation and published a STATUS with candidate changes. The Team sends a exclusion opportunity. It lasts 60 days. Exclusions are with respect to the candidate changes identified in the specification.


Page owned and process managed by Philippe Le Hégaret and Ralph Swick on behalf of the W3C Director.
Philippe Le Hégaret, editor
This document has been constructed by merging information from several "How to" documents created by Dan Connolly, Al Gilman, Ian Jacobs, and others.
This document is maintained on GitHub. Issues are welcome.