This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
There seem to be two components being mixed up in this specification. One is a specification produced by a working group, the other is the workflow of a working group. Its not clear that these are fully distinguished, or should be evaluated on the same proforma.
http://www.w3.org/mid/6.0.0.22.2.20050304115615.021bd178@mailserver.nist.gov In Section 5 Quality Control, 5GP A, define an internal publication and review process is workflow oriented. It is difficult to evaluate these workflow components, since it is different than the other guidelines. Basically these are out of character with the rest of SpecGL. Need to distinguish these better. Proposal move it, so it isnt in the main body of the specification. This would be consistent with not mixing normative and informative information. Rename good practice. These aim at editing a specification. 2.3GP B systematic review of normative references rework so that it remains in the body of SpecGL. GP Write test assertions should also be part of the spec. 5GP A, B is workflow. 5GP D, E could fit in chapter 3, if rewritten. 4.2GPA need for optional feature reword as use optional features as warranted. Link 2.1B to 5C. ACTION: Move to appendix. Reformat perhaps more textual, rename so there are no good practices. Label as informative. Karl ACTION: rework GP2.3 B to be less workflow, but keep it in the main body of the document. Dave 15 March ACTION: Move 5GP D test assertions into chapter 3 and reword. Patrick. 15 March ACTION: Move 5GP E formal languages into chapter 3 and reword. Dom 15 March ACTION: change title of 4.2GPA to Use optional features as warranted. RESOLUTION: agree with the TAG, will separate the workflow aspects from the specifications aspects of the document.
Done by karl in editors version as a new informative section, coming right after the guidelines.
setting version to LC in case of future use