Re: CfC: Add warnings to old DOM specifications; deadline April 18

* Arthur Barstow wrote:
>Msger's (Mozilla) proposed text is in the following document and this is
>a Call for Consensus to agree on this text. If this CfC passes, the text
>will be added to the top of the Recommendations as was done with [D2V]:
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/att-0044/warnings.html

DOM Level 3 Core essentially replaced DOM Level 2 Core for the features
relevant to both specifications, especially as far as unversioned imple-
mentations are concerned. Since making such status update edits is not
currently a widely adopted W3C practise, the pointer should go to the
DOM Level 3 Core specification, to avoid that people make assumptions a-
bout the absence of such notices in other specifications. At least this
would have to be explained in the note.

It does not seem like the people interested in "DOM4" actually mean to
make a specification that could meaningfully "supersede" DOM Level 3
Core for all its current users; there are no Java bindings for instance.
As such I would regard the note as proposed as rather misleading.

For DOM Level 3 Load and Save the statement "have not seen adoption in
web browsers" is misleading, and Working Groups cannot declare certain
Recommendations as obsolete and no longer "recommended". The Process for
that is to formally Rescind them, and that is what the group should do
if it wants to communicate anything more than that the specifications
are no longer being maintained. I note, again, that there are legal pro-
blems with rescinding Recommendations "informally" as proposed.

All the notes should reference formal publications of the W3C, not un-
published documents. The reason for that should be quite obvious, you
want to be able to counter any criticism of things in the editor drafts
by pointing out they are just that. That defense will not work very well
if referencing editor drafts becomes ubiquitous, even in formal settings
like the SotD. The press for instance might feel justified to report on
bad proposals in editors' drafts, and report them as the real deal with
support by member organizations if the formally published documents are
hard to find or are often out of date. Similarily, courts may find that
promoting informal documents in this manner is a form of deception. If
X, Y, and Z are in the Working Group, X puts something into an editor's
draft, Y implements it and Z sues Y over it, Y might argue they assumed
Z will commit to RF licensing, and Z might argue they never knew about
what X put into the draft because it was never formally published. Who
will win the argument if there is confusion about the standing of these
editor drafts? And who will pay for the damages to the W3C's reputation
this might cause, whatever the outcome? "We" avoid this kind of stuff by
simply accepting that referencing the formally published works is the
right, normal, proper, expected thing to do. If people want to change
that, they will have to talk to whoever will suffer the consequences. As
that is not the Working Group as such, it's the wrong forum to propose
this kind of change. Hence the first sentence of this paragraph.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 00:44:32 UTC