In this case we don't know if the spec is feature complete. We just know there 
are things that need to be done.

If they turn out to be all that needs to be done the thing is feature complete, 
and we ask for CR. If not, we hope to discover so now.

But then, it's not a big deal either way. It just feels odd calling a draft a 
"wide review" draft, as if we didn't want that on other drafts. And fails to 
match what the Process requests of Working drafts which is that they all 
identify which bits they particularly want reviewed - changes, "the whole 
thing", "missing bits", …


12.05.2015, 14:05, "Arthur Barstow" <>:
> On 5/12/15 7:57 AM, wrote:
>>  I don't think we need a CfC to publish a WD, right? We should just
>>  publish it, and then open a CfC on the plan to move to 2nd edition
>>  with these changes incorporated, and asking if there are other changes
>>  we should include before we move ahead.
> Yes, our SOP is not to do a CfC for a `plain` WD publication but I
> understood a `wide review WD` as a signal the spec is feature complete
> and the next step is CR+. Thus in this case, it seems like a single CfC
> to capture that, plus the other stuff I mentioned should be sufficient.
> -AB

Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex - - - Find more at

Reply via email to