[cabfpub] CAB Forum Document Versioning

[Gervase Markham]

On 30/01/13 18:01, Jeremy Rowley wrote:
> Let me rephrase my previous rationale in another way: Although an
> audit is necessary to prove compliance to the browser, I do not think
> an audit is required for CAB Forum guidelines to effectively improve
> the industry.  I think the baseline requirements have already had a
> positive effect on our industry, despite the lack of an audit.  Since
> guidelines initiate progress within our industry when adopted, I'm
> not in favor of tying the effective date of documents to the date
> when audit criteria are made available.

I agree. There are various dates:

1) Standard adoption date - when a particular version of the standard
   is finalized

2) Effective date - the date which CAB Forum recommends to browsers
   that they choose as their "actual effective date" (see below)

3) Actual effective date (root program specific) - the date by which
   root programs decide to require compliance to the standard

4) Audit standards publication date - the date a new version of the
   audit standards are issued

5) Actual effective audit date (root program specific) - the date after
   which root programs require use of the new audit standards

[3) and 5) are not the same; Mozilla has required adherence to the BRs
before the audit standards have arrived, acknowledging that there are
_some_ things in there that we have no good way of checking.]

1) and 2) are up to the CAB Forum
3) and 5) are up to each individual root program
4) is up to the audit standards groups

Each date is useful.

Gerv