On 22/11/2006, at 2:46 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
TIMETABLE
The milestones in the charter are somewhat unrealistic. I would
suggest
the following timetable would be far more likely, based on past
experience
with HTML4 (which is still not fully implemented by any two UAs),
DOM, and
CSS2.1 (which is the only large W3C specification to have attempted a
serious disambiguation period):
I agree the current timetable is overly agressive - it's hard to
imagine reaching REC in 2009 without major process abuse. But on
the other hand, plotting the future out to 2022 has little
predictive or planning value. I would prefer if the charter simply
did not include a milestone for REC. Let's leave five-year plans to
the soviets.
First Working Draft in October 2007.
Last Call Working Draft in October 2009.
Call for contributions for the test suite in 2011.
Candidate Recommendation in 2012.
First draft of test suite in 2012.
Second draft of test suite in 2015.
Final version of test suite in 2019.
Reissued Last Call Working Draft in 2020.
Proposed Recommendation in 2022.
My experience with documents on the W3C track tells me that the only
thing you can (fairly) accurately predict is when you'll *first*
enter Last Call. Everything past that is mostly out of the WG's control.
Would it be enough to only have a Last Call on the charter?
I liked David's suggestion that the group consider deliverables with
smaller increments, although I understand what Ian says about this
being difficult. It still might be possible to develop an HTML
specification with the minimum set of new features.
The development of the test suite is another matter, but I would
expect that the majority of it arrives after CR.
Dean
