Distinguishing types of documents

[mnot]

As widely discussed, it is far too easy to confuse W3C consensus output from other documents that have a home at the W3C but lack full consensus. This is especially true for those who are not familiar with the organisation -- e.g., journalists, developers who don't participate, and regulators.

If the W3C is to effectively communicate and preserve the value in our consensus products, they need to be distinguished from non-consensus products. The follow aspects should be considered:

• The boilerplate text near the start of a specification -- what the document says that it is and is not
• The contents of the header -- as this is
• The terminology that we use to denote status -- while those familiar understand the distinctions, others may not, depending on the terms used
• The visual presentation of the document -- often, people assume that two documents with the same visual style have the same source and status
• Use of the W3C logo -- should a non-consensus document be able to associate itself so strongly with the consortium?
• Use of W3C URLs -- while insiders know what /TR means, most of the planet does not. E.g., should community reports be on a separate hostname?
• How non-consensus bodies present themselves elsewhere -- e.g., on GitHub, how they publicly describe themselves, etc.

See also w3c/tr-pages#90