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

Re: Obsoleting

From: Daniel Appelquist <dan@torgo.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 15:59:09 +0000
Message-ID: <CALiHrgnSdOWvVrdh9gCTVN-h0g6+_4kWrKN-ud=UATQOANVCbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Champion <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: Virginie Galindo <virginie.galindo@gemalto.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
I think it should be blue but I can live with green.

Sorry, I mean:

I think it should be "deprecate" since that is commonly used in software,
but "obsolete" is fine.

Dan

On Mon, 16 May 2016 at 16:52 Michael Champion <
Michael.Champion@microsoft.com> wrote:

> FWIW I am comfortable using "obsolete" to refer both to Recommendations
> that have a newer version and for those that are no longer recommended for
> other reasons.  A 1959 Edsel (famously unsuccessful car model) is just as
> obsolete as the 1959 VW Beetle (which has been superseded by newer models).
>
>
> _____________________________
> From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Obsoleting
> To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
> Cc: Virginie Galindo <virginie.galindo@gemalto.com>, <
> public-w3process@w3.org>
>
>
>
> Yes, the words are a difficulty. ‘Obsolete’ is better used when we have a
> new version of something (HTML 5 obsoletes HTML 4). The better word for ‘no
> longer recommend’ is ‘deprecate’ but it’s not a common word and hence an
> issue for non-english speakers.
>
>
> > On May 14, 2016, at 18:30 , Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> > Virginia,
> > "Resind" and "obsolete" have very different meanings. A Recommendation
> that is rescinded is no longer a Recommendation and has no licensing
> guarantees. A Recommendation that is obsoleted remains a Recommendation and
> still has patent licensing commitments, but implementation of that
> Recommendation is discouraged. This more than a note. I do however
> understand that people (and not just non-English speakers) are likely to be
> confused by which word goes with which semantics. By the way, both words
> have been used (ands defined above) in W3C specifications: rescind in the
> W3C Process Document and obsolete in HTML 4.1.
> >
> > Maybe we could use "discouraged" or some similar word instead of
> "obsolete" but then we would need to define how "discouraged" relates to
> the current use of "obsolete".
> >
> > Steve Z
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 edge, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >
> >
> > -------- Original message --------
> > From: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.Galindo@gemalto.com>
> > Date: 5/12/16 11:15 PM (GMT+03:30)
> > To: public-w3process@w3.org, David Singer <singer@apple.com>
> > Subject: Re: Obsoleting
> >
> > David,
> > Great work. The wording shared still use rescind, obsolete and retire
> qualifications. As a non english native speaker, it seems very complex and
> I can not catch the subtility of ut. Cant we use only one of them,
> explaining the different reasons for doing so (error, not state of the art,
> not used, partial or complete.).
> > What do you think ?
> > Virginie
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- David Singer a écrit ----
> >
> >
> > > On May 12, 2016, at 6:40 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > In general part of our objective for the past several years has been a
> reduction of the length of the process document.
> > >
> > > It is hard to get enthusiastic to add so much text for something so
> rarely used.
> > >
> > > I confess I don't have an immediate fix to my issue.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> >
> > well, the version that has one section for both rescinding and
> obsoleting doesn’t add so much, and it fixes a number of bugs in the
> Rescind process at the time (not that we ever use it). But agreed, it still
> seems awfully heavy and formal.
> >
> > New versions attached, dealing with comments received.
> >
> > a) clarify that the group has to *agree* to the request when an
> individual makes a request of the WG or TAG
> > b) clarify that the Director doesn’t just announce, but also starts a
> formal AC review
> > c) clarify that the publication depends on the Director’s final decision
> (“before *any* publication…”
> > d) clarify that contacting all W3C groups means using at least the
> all-chairs mailing list
> >
> > here is the combined text inline for those for whom Word tracked-change
> documents are unreadable:
> >
> > I also assume that this
> >
> > Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical
> reports must not include normative references to that technical report.
> >
> > is a typo for
> >
> > Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical
> reports must not include normative references to it. [[i.e. to the
> Recommendation]]
> >
> > (and why is it limited to Technical Reports?)
> >
> > * * * *
> >
> > 6.9 Obsoleting or Rescinding a W3C Recommendation
> >
> > W3C may rescind a Recommendation, for example if the Recommendation
> contains many errors that conflict with a later version or if W3C discovers
> burdensome patent claims that affect implementers and cannot be resolved;
> see the W3C Patent Policy [PUB33] and in particular section 5 (bullet 10)
> and section 7.5.
> >
> > W3C may obsolete a Recommendation, for example if the W3C Community
> feels that the Recommendation no longer represents best practices, or is
> not adopted and unlikely to be adopted.
> > In this clause, the word 'retire' is used to refer to either obsoleting
> or rescinding. W3C only retires entire specifications. To retire some part
> of a Recommendation, W3C follows the process for modifying a Recommendation.
> >
> > The process to retire a specification may be initiated:
> > a) By anyone on request to the relevant Working Group (if it exists), or
> the TAG, and that group agrees;
> > b) By the Director;
> > c) On the request of anyone if their request to the WG or TAG is not
> acted on in 90 days;
> > d) By 5% of the Advisory Committee.
> >
> > The Director must announce the proposal to retire a W3C Recommendation
> to other W3C groups using at least the mailing list for all chairs, the
> public, and by starting an Advisory Committee review. The announcement:
> > • must include the rationale for retiring the Recommendation;
> > • should document known implementation;
> > • must indicate that this is a Proposal to Rescind, or a proposal to
> Obsolete, a Recommendation;
> > • must specify the deadline for review comments, which must be at least
> four weeks after announcing the proposal;
> > • must identify known dependencies and solicit review from all dependent
> Working Groups;
> > • must solicit public review.
> >
> > If there was any dissent in the Advisory Committee review, the Director
> must publish the substantive content of the dissent to W3C and the public,
> and must formally address the comment at least 14 days before any
> publication as a Retired Recommendation. The Advisory Committee may appeal
> the decision.
> >
> > A retired Recommendation must be published with up to date status. The
> status 'Rescinded' or 'Obsoleted' should link to a page explaining the term.
> >
> > In the case of a Rescinded Recommendation, the updated version may
> remove the rescinded content (i.e. the main body of the document).
> >
> > Once W3C has published a Rescinded Recommendation, future W3C technical
> reports must not include normative references to it.
> >
> > Note: the original Recommendation document will continue to be available
> at its version-specific URL.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On 5/11/2016 6:11 PM, David Singer wrote:
> > >> OK
> > >>
> > >> here are two draft texts
> > >>
> > >> 1) add a new section, closely modeled on Rescinding, that deals only
> with Obsoleting.
> > >> 2) A combined section, where 90%+ of the text is common, dealing with
> both Obsoleting and Rescinding.
> > >>
> > >> I note that there are confusing aspects of the current Rescinding
> process. For example, one has to show that the request has had Wide Review,
> and then we ask again for Public Review and review by the W3C. Why both? I
> deleted the Wide Review clause.
> > >>
> > >> Similarly, the Director has to show he’s starting the process because
> of public comment, but then any initiation has to include rationale. Why
> the Director can’t simply supply Rationale (including, if he has it, public
> comment) is not clear. So I removed this unique requirement on only the
> Director.
> > >>
> > >> Some of the paragraphs were in a funny place; e.g. the requirement
> that you shouldn’t refer to a Rescinded recommendation was in the middle of
> the process, whereas logically it follows at the end of the process, once
> Rescinsion has happened.
> > >>
> > >> I was in two minds as to whether the TAG can only be used if the WG
> doesn’t exist, but this opens the whole question of whether this is the
> ‘same’ WG; I think it safer always to allow the TAG to do it.
> > >>
> > >> I can’t say I am enthused about fixing the Rescind process, as we
> have never (?) used it. On the other hand, I am not enthused about having
> two similar steps with slightly different processes, nor of having odd bits
> of the process with bugs (e.g. you can’t appeal a decision if it’s bizarre
> but there wasn’t preceding dissent), so on balance I think the combined
> clause makes more sense.
> > >>
> > >> Drafts enclosed, change-tracked in Word. Let me know if you cannot
> open them.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On May 10, 2016, at 16:30 , Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2016-05-09 16:42, David Singer wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>> On May 9, 2016, at 9:14 , L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> (The one other thing I was worried about with this obsoletion
> > >>>>> discussion was that it might be creating a process that's hard
> > >>>>> enough to complete that it will never be used successfully.)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> It does seem very heavy, but only because of the fail-safe valves
> in some places. Those valves are actually missing from the Rescind process
> as well, so we could make it all much easier and adjust the section on
> Rescinding to cover both cases. (For example, we have no way to Rescind a
> document if the WG no longer exists; there is no way for the AC to
> over-ride a bad WG decision, or to proceed in the absence of a decision.)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * Anyone suggest to the owning Working Group (if it exists) or the
> TAG (otherwise) that a document be Obsoleted or Rescinded.
> > >>>> * That group does the technical sanity check etc.
> > >>>> * The AC votes
> > >>>> * The Director approves
> > >>>> * The team does the appropriate marking/editing.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Safety valves: AC can override the WG/TAG ’no' if someone can find
> 5% of the AC wanting to force a ballot. If the WG/TAG doesn’t act in 90
> days, anyone can force it to the AC by saying “timeout!”. The AC can appeal
> the final Director decision.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> combining them is good, as is listing the safety valve exceptional
> case separately. that makes it clear it almost always is very simple. i
> think its a good model for a lot of decisions.
> > >>>
> > >>>> Dave Singer
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> singer@mac.com
> > >> Dave Singer
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> singer@mac.com
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > David Singer
> > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> >
> > This message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressees
> and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized use or
> disclosure, either whole or partial, is prohibited.
> > E-mails are susceptible to alteration. Our company shall not be liable
> for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the
> intended recipient of this message, please delete it and notify the sender.
> > Although all reasonable efforts have been made to keep this transmission
> free from viruses, the sender will not be liable for damages caused by a
> transmitted virus.
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 16 May 2016 15:59:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 16 May 2016 15:59:58 UTC