Version numbering

[Robert Hanisch]

I think in most cases we have worked out the issues at the WD level, and if
there are changes that are more than cosmetic then a document should not
proceed to REC.  The changes we discussed in Trieste to the ADQL PR are, in
my mind, right at the limit of what is acceptable without going back to WD.

Bob


On 6/25/08 10:34 AM, "Mark Taylor" <m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Robert Hanisch wrote:
> 
>> A WD1.0, PR1.0, and REC1.0 can all be identical (and generally are) save for
>> the boilerplate text at the beginning that identifies the status of the
>> document.
> 
> really?  I agree that they can in principle have identical content, but
> in most cases surely the point of the WD->PR->REC progression, along
> with the associated discussions and RFC periods, is so that improvements
> can be made to the more provisional drafts in order to come up with
> a higher quality public recommendation.
> 
> Mark