[css-2015] Rewrite Process section, copied mostly from http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/weblog/2011/inside-csswg/process.

Author: tabatkins

css-2015/Overview.bs

@@ -57,67 +57,6 @@ Introduction {#intro}
 	and/or the <a href="http://www.w3.org/blog/CSS">CSS Working Group Blog</a>
 	for any resulting changes, corrections, or clarifications.
 
-<h3 id="w3c-process">The W3C Process and CSS</h3>
-
-	<em>This section is non-normative.</em>
-
-	In the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/">W3C Process</a>,
-	a Recommendation-track document passes through five levels of stability,
-	summarized below:
-
-	<dl>
-		<dt>Working Draft (WD)
-		<dd>
-			Published during the process of drafting the specification,
-			the purpose of a public Working Draft is to create a snapshot of
-			the specification's current state and to solicit input from the
-			W3C and the public. The document is known to be unstable, and is
-			often incomplete.
-
-		<dt>Last Call Working Draft (LC or LCWD)
-		<dd>
-			By publishing a Last Call Working Draft, a working group is
-			expressing that they consider the spec to be complete and all
-			issues to be resolved. Publishing a Last Call Working Draft
-			announces that this specification will move toward Candidate
-			Recommendation unless significant issues are brought up. The
-			Last Call period is a last chance for others to submit issues
-			before the transition to CR.
-
-		<dt>Candidate Recommendation (CR)
-		<dd>
-			By publishing a Candidate Recommendation, a working group is
-			expressing that have resolved all known issues and they believe
-			the spec is ready for implementation.
-
-		<dt>Proposed Recommendation (PR)
-		<dd>
-			To exit CR and enter this stage, the spec needs a comprehensive
-			test suite and implementation reports proving that every feature
-			in the spec is interoperably implemented in at least two shipping
-			implementations. Entering the Proposed Recommendation stage signals
-			to the W3C that these requirements have been met. Once the W3C
-			officially approves the specification, it becomes a Recommendation.
-
-		<dt>Recommendation (REC)
-		<dd>
-			This is the final stage. At this point there should need to
-			be no more changes.
-	</dl>
-
-	In the CSSWG's experience, the recommendation track is not linear.
-	The wider review triggered by an LCWD often results in at least another
-	working draft, possibly several. More significantly, our experience is
-	that many specs enter CR twice, because implementation testing often
-	uncovers significant problems in the spec and thus pushes it back to
-	working draft. Additionally, fixing even minor problems forces a CR
-	to re-enter the Working Draft stage. As a result, although the CSSWG
-	has a clear idea of the stability of the CSS specs, it is very difficult
-	for someone outside the working group to come to that same understanding
-	based on a specification's official status. The CSS Working Group's
-	motivation for creating this document is thus to communicate to others
-	our understanding of the state of CSS.
-
 
 <h2 id="css">Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) &mdash; The Official Definition</h2>
 
@@ -156,6 +95,12 @@ Introduction {#intro}
 		* plus will-change and CSS3 UI once stable updates are published to TR
 	</div>
 
+	Advisement:
+	A list of all CSS modules, stable and in-progress,
+	and their statuses
+	can be found at the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work">CSS Current Work page</a>.
+
+
 <h3 id="css-levels">
 CSS Levels</h3>
 
@@ -219,14 +164,71 @@ CSS Levels</h3>
 			Modules with no <a>CSS Level 2</a> equivalent start at Level 1;
 			modules that update features that existed in <a>CSS Level 2</a> start at Level 3.
 
-		<dt><dfn export>CSS Level 4</dfn>
+		<dt><dfn export>CSS Level 4</dfn> and beyond
 		<dd>
 			There is no CSS Level 4.
 			Independent modules can reach level 4 or beyond,
 			but CSS the language no longer has levels.
 			("CSS Level 3" as a term is used only to differentiate it from the previous monolithic versions.)
 	</dl>
 
+<h3 id="w3c-process">The W3C Process and CSS</h3>
+
+	In the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/">W3C Process</a>,
+	a Recommendation-track document passes through three levels of stability,
+	summarized below:
+
+	<dl>
+		<dt>Working Draft (WD)
+		<dd>
+
+			This is the design phase of a W3C spec.
+			The WG iterates the spec in response to internal and external feedback.
+
+			The first official Working Draft is designated the “First Public Working Draft” (FPWD).
+			In the CSSWG, publishing FPWD indicates that the Working Group as a whole has agreed to work on the module,
+			roughly as scoped out and proposed in the editor's draft.
+
+ 			The transition to the next stage is sometimes called “Last Call Working Draft” (LCWD) phase.
+ 			The CSSWG transitions Working Drafts once we have resolved all known issues,
+ 			and can make no further progress without feedback from building tests and implementations.
+
+			This ”Last Call for Comments” sets a deadline for reporting any outstanding issues,
+			and requires the WG to specially track and address incoming feedback.
+			The comment-tracking document is the Disposition of Comments (DoC).
+			It is submitted along with an updated draft for the Director's approval,
+			to demonstrate wide review and acceptance.
+
+		<dt>Candidate Recommendation (CR)
+		<dd>
+			This is the testing phase of a W3C spec.
+			Notably, this phase is about using tests and implementations to test the specification:
+			it is not about testing the implementations.
+			This process often reveals more problems with the spec,
+			and so a Candidate Recommendation will morph over time in response to implementation and testing feedback,
+			though usually less so than during the design phase (WD).
+
+			Demonstration of two correct, independent implementations of each feature is required to exit CR,
+			so in this phase the WG builds a test suite and generates implementation reports.
+
+			The transition to the next stage is “Proposed Recommendation” (PR).
+			During this phase the W3C Advisory Committee must approve the transition to REC.
+
+		<dt>Recommendation (REC)
+		<dd>
+			This is the completed state of a W3C spec and represents a maintainance phase.
+			At this point the WG only maintains an errata document
+			and occasionally publishes an updated edition that incorporates the errata back into the spec.
+	</dl>
+
+	An <dfn export>Editor's Draft</dfn> is effectively a live copy of the editors’ own working copy.
+	It may or may not reflect Working Group consensus,
+	and can at times be in a self-inconsistent state.
+	(Because the publishing process at W3C is time-consuming and onerous,
+	the <a>Editor's Draft</a> is usually the best (most up-to-date) reference for a spec.
+	Efforts are currently underway to reduce the friction of publishing,
+	so that official drafts will be regularly up-to-date
+	and <a>Editor's Drafts</a> can return to their original function as scratch space.)
 
 <h2 id="responsible">
 Requirements for Responsible Implementation of CSS</h2>