W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:10:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAg0WN=WG-krF4zjX9n2c5xFgactdifzpnxMtPHR9ggTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:01 AM, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The recent message to www-dom about DOM2HTML [1] made me realize that we
> still haven't added warnings to obsolete DOM specifications to hopefully
> avoid that people use them as a reference.
>
> I propose that we add a pointer to the contemporary specification to the
> following specifications:
>
> * DOM 2 Core (DOM4)
> * DOM 2 Views (HTML)
> * DOM 2 Events (D3E)
> * DOM 2 Style (CSSOM)
> * DOM 2 Traversal and Range (DOM4)
> * DOM 2 HTML (HTML)
> * DOM 3 Core (DOM4)
>
> and a recommendation against implementing the following specifications:
>
> * DOM 3 Load and Save
> * DOM 3 Validation
>
> Hearing no objections, I'll try to move this forward.
>
> Ms2ger
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2012JanMar/0011.html

I also strongly support adding warnings.  There's little worse than
spending time reviewing or even implementing a feature from a spec
only to be told that it's obsolete, everyone else already knew that,
and you just wasted a bunch of time.

To answer Glenn's objection, many of the specs already have better and
more functional replacements, regardless of their status in the W3C
Process.  Even if they don't, knowing that we consider a spec to be
abandoned and obsolete is valuable - that way people can either work
on a replacement, or figure out what was wrong with the original draft
that causes us to abandon it and fix that.  Omitting such a warning
helps literally no one.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 19:11:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT