Closed fantasai closed 1 month ago
There must be some expected and permitted minor differences, so it would be good to be clear about what they are. I'm thinking of things that you may or may not consider to be part of the document:
Is there scope for requiring specific markup on the AC Review CR, so that the final SOTD text will be visible to reviewers but in a "proposed for Rec" or "for review" styled block, I wonder? I'm not sure if that's a Process question or not.
Currently we only restrict to "must not contain substantive changes" from the PR, so probably we can just preserve that qualification. https://www.w3.org/policies/process/#transition-rec
The Revising W3C Process CG just discussed Close review loopholes from dropping Proposed REC
, and agreed to the following:
RESOLVED: Accept this PR with Florian's final wording tweak
Filing this to make sure we review the text about dropping PR to ensure that the document published as REC corresponds precisely to the document reviewed during the patent exclusion period and AC formal review.