W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > May 2016

Re: Obsoleting

From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2016 13:12:56 +0000
To: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ka1dr15dq8ff9tnyu5uw7jmn.1462713176998@email.android.com>




Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: 5/8/16 4:54 PM (GMT+03:30)
To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Obsoleting





Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: 5/8/16 6:22 AM (GMT+03:30)
To: public-w3process@w3.org
Subject: Obsoleting

A simple question.

Is there any conflict between the current discussion of obsoleting and
the previous usage of the term in W3C.  As one random example, HTML 4.01
in its Status says that it obsoletes HTML 4 [1].

Jeff

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/


SZ: This is a good question, one that should be discussed on the mailing list. At first thought, I believe that the usage of "obsolete" is the same in both the HTML document and in David Singer's proposal; namely, one should not longer implement the obsoleted specification. In one case, the responsible Working Group has consciously obsoleted a prior specification by superseding it, in the other case, a specification has ceased to be worth using without any intent to supercede it.

Having said that, if we are giving "Obsolete" a formal meaning, then the section on "Obsoleting a Recommendation" should also specify how a Working Group obsoletes a prior Recommendation. For example,

"When a Working Group creates a Proposed Recommendation, it may specify that that PR, if it becomes a Recommendation, obsoletes a particular set of prior Recommendations."

Steve Z
Received on Sunday, 8 May 2016 13:30:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 8 May 2016 13:30:30 UTC