Sarven Capadisli

I'm not sure I completely understand the intention of this issue. This repository was intended for us to discuss, understand, and improve the vocabularies that can be used by the...

Good practice to include provenance information about the modifications eg. when a term gets added to the vocabulary, it can specify issue date, status, creator, relation to specification/documentation etc. However,...

Thank you @shujikamitsuna for reporting the typo. Exciting to see the Japanese translation! @sandhawke , can the typo be corrected on w3.org? Do we just update the REC branch? Is...

@plehegar @frivoal @fantasai @koalie , perhaps the relevant parts of this issue should also be followed up in https://github.com/w3c/w3process (since it touches both standards/types and Process)?

Restricting the use of only DRAFT/FINAL reports for CG/BGs goes against the idea of nurturing incubation spaces and is not practical. And, evidently, CG/BGs do use ED/UD document types out...

My reference was to the overview of documents under https://www.w3.org/standards/types/#x1-summary for row "CG/BG Report", column "Patent Policy" with value "Partial". Happy to be corrected on the wording I used, and...

@koalie , thanks for the changes that you've mentioned in https://github.com/w3c/tr-pages/issues/102#issuecomment-1794692196 . I do think that helps and I acknowledge the context in which "W3C Group" is used in that...

Correction to my "no-watermark" above: after re-re-revisiting, comparing tool outputs, checking CG reports, reviewing styles,... my current understanding is that CG-DRAFT only comes with a watermark and the no-watermark is...

@koalie , I'm not sure if this is the correct repo to update the standards/types page but I've created https://github.com/w3c/tr-pages/pull/108 for your consideration.

Great, thank you @koalie and everyone!