Information

Simplifying the Updatable REC Process
  • Past
  • Confirmed
  • Breakout Sessions

Meeting

Event details

Date:
– Pacific Daylight Time
Status:
Confirmed
Location:
-1 Lower Level - Catalina 7
Participants:
Denis Ah-Kang, Marcos Caceres, Florent Castelli, Tantek Çelik, Elika Etemad, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux, Rick Johnson, Gregg Kellogg, Ege Korkan, Philippe Le Hegaret, Nigel Megitt, Florian Rivoal, Jan Romann
Big meeting:
TPAC 2024 (Calendar)

Join us at the W3C TPAC 2024 Tech Plenary to address the challenges and potential solutions for the updatable REC process. We'll focus on the issues outlined in issue #866 and collaborate on making the process more efficient.

Core Challenges:

  1. Complex Manual Markup: The requirement for detailed manual markup (e.g., <ins>, <del>, specific classes) is time-consuming and prone to errors, frustrating many editors.
  2. Detailed Change Tracking: Extensive documentation and linking for each change add unnecessary overhead, often leading to mistakes and confusion.
  3. Inflexible Class System: The rigid classification system complicates the editing process and increases the potential for errors.

Proposed Alternatives:

  • Enhanced Automated Tooling: Develop tools that automatically generate the necessary markup from simpler inputs, reducing the manual burden on editors.
  • Streamline the Existing Process: Simplify the current markup requirements to lower the entry barrier and reduce the time spent on updates.
  • Educational Support: Increase training and support for editors to improve efficiency and understanding of the process.

Additional Strategic Alternatives:

  • Discontinue the Updatable REC Process: Consider phasing out the current process in favor of something that aligns better with the working realities of editors while maintaining necessary IPR protections.
  • Discourage Use of the Current Process: Officially recommend that the current updatable REC process be used only when absolutely necessary due to its complexity and high overhead.
  • Introduce a 'Living Recommendation' Model: Adopt a model similar to the WHATWG living standards, allowing for continuous updates without detailed version tracking and complex markup. But we do it in manner that meets W3C assurances and requirements.

Agenda

Chairs:
Marcos Caceres

Description:
Join us at the W3C TPAC 2024 Tech Plenary to address the challenges and potential solutions for the updatable REC process. We'll focus on the issues outlined in issue #866 and collaborate on making the process more efficient.

Core Challenges:

  1. Complex Manual Markup: The requirement for detailed manual markup (e.g., <ins>, <del>, specific classes) is time-consuming and prone to errors, frustrating many editors.
  2. Detailed Change Tracking: Extensive documentation and linking for each change add unnecessary overhead, often leading to mistakes and confusion.
  3. Inflexible Class System: The rigid classification system complicates the editing process and increases the potential for errors.

Proposed Alternatives:

  • Enhanced Automated Tooling: Develop tools that automatically generate the necessary markup from simpler inputs, reducing the manual burden on editors.
  • Streamline the Existing Process: Simplify the current markup requirements to lower the entry barrier and reduce the time spent on updates.
  • Educational Support: Increase training and support for editors to improve efficiency and understanding of the process.

Additional Strategic Alternatives:

  • Discontinue the Updatable REC Process: Consider phasing out the current process in favor of something that aligns better with the working realities of editors while maintaining necessary IPR protections.
  • Discourage Use of the Current Process: Officially recommend that the current updatable REC process be used only when absolutely necessary due to its complexity and high overhead.
  • Introduce a 'Living Recommendation' Model: Adopt a model similar to the WHATWG living standards, allowing for continuous updates without detailed version tracking and complex markup. But we do it in manner that meets W3C assurances and requirements.

Goal(s):
Improve process and tooling

Materials:

Track(s):

  • Standards

Minutes

 Read minutes

Export options

Personal Links

Please log in to export this event with all the information you have access to.

Public Links

The following links do not contain any sensitive information and can be shared publicly.

Feedback

Report feedback and issues on GitHub.