Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Recommendation process update #71

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Sep 11, 2023
Merged

Recommendation process update #71

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
7ec84ea
Adding changes to bring the recommendation process in line with stand…
AramZS Aug 28, 2023
a5161e4
Placeholder for Ecma under external organizations, needs to get fille…
AramZS Aug 28, 2023
cd98ae4
Add editor config file for standard use of spacing in editors
AramZS Aug 28, 2023
ed2db69
After consultation we believe we no longer will need to regularly con…
AramZS Sep 10, 2023
014cf44
Update charter.html
AramZS Sep 11, 2023
bf95268
Update charter.html
AramZS Sep 11, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
5 changes: 5 additions & 0 deletions .editorconfig
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
[*.html]
indent_style = space
indent_size = 2
end_of_line = lf
charset = utf-8
32 changes: 17 additions & 15 deletions charter.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ <h3>Timeline</h3>
</section>
</section>

<section id="success-criteria">
<section id="success-criteria">
<h2>Success Criteria</h2>
<p>The WG will progress its normative specifications through the following
standardization process:
Expand All @@ -270,20 +270,18 @@ <h2>Success Criteria</h2>
Recommendation Snapshot</a>, and <a href="https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#candidate-recommendation-draft">Candidate
Recommendation Draft</a>. The WG does not intend to publish specifications as <a href="https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#RecsPR">Proposed Recommendations</a>.

<p>To reach the Candidate Recommendation Snapshot stage, each normative
specification is expected to have <a href="https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/#implementation-experience">at
least two independent implementations</a> of every feature defined in the specification.
Interoperability of implementations will be verified by passing open test suites.
<p>There should be testing plans for each specification, starting from the earliest drafts.</p>

<p>Each normative specification should contain separate sections detailing security and privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users.</p>

<p>There shall be a testing plan and open test suite developed that covers all functional
aspects of normative specifications developed by the WG.

<p>Normative specifications which have user-facing features should contain a section on accessibility that describes the benefits and impacts, including ways specification features can be used to address them, and recommendations for maximizing accessibility in implementations.</p>

<p>In considering features, the group will state, during the development of those features or in the text of the document, privacy implications. Proposals should clearly state privacy issues, how they intend to address those issues, and the advertising use cases addressed in each deliverable.</p>
</section>
<p>To promote interoperability, all changes made to specifications in Candidate Recommendation or to features that have deployed implementations should have tests. Testing efforts should be conducted via the Web Platform Tests project.</p>

<p>Each specification should contain sections detailing security and privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users, as well as recommendations for mitigation. There should be a clear description of the residual risk to the user or operator of that protocol after threat mitigation has been deployed.</p>

<p>Each specification should contain a section on accessibility that describes the benefits and impacts, including ways specification features can be used to address them, and recommendations for maximizing accessibility in implementations.</p>

<p>All new features should be supported by at least two intents to implement before being incorporated in the specification.</p>
AramZS marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

<p>In considering features, the group will state, during the development of those features or in the text of the document, privacy implications. Proposals should clearly state privacy issues, how they intend to address those issues, and the advertising use cases addressed in each deliverable.</p>
</section>

<section id="coordination">
<h2>Coordination</h2>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -349,7 +347,11 @@ <h3 id="external-coordination">External Organizations</h3>
<dl>
<dt><a href="https://www.ietf.org">IETF</a></dt>
<dd>A number of IETF working groups are likely venues for standardization of protocol components that advertising features depend on and research groups are investigating issues that will feed into the designs this group will consider.</a>
</section>
</dl>
<dl>
<dt><a href="https://www.ecma-international.org/">Ecma</a></dt>
<dd>A number of Ecma working groups are likely venues for standardization of protocol components that advertising features depend on.</a>
</section>
</section>
<section class="participation">
<h2 id="participation">
Expand Down