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

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:39:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cKswNp6cER0b6i41_GP3oNfWh2jxH=c=J2U+_S=O4gqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:58 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>wrote:

> Ms2ger,
>
> Last September, some obsolescence text was added to the DOM 2 Views REC:
>
> [[
> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-**Level-2-Views/#notice-20110922<http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Views/#notice-20110922>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-**DOM-Level-2-Views-20001113/<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-DOM-Level-2-Views-20001113/>
>
> *Document Status Update 2011-09-22*: This paragraph is informative. The
> concepts this document defines are obsolete. The 'document' and
> 'defaultView' attributes are defined in the HTML5 <
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/> specification with simplified semantics. The
> Web Applications Working Group <http://www.w3.org/2008/**webapps/<http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/>>
> encourages implementation of these concepts as defined by HTML5.
> ]]
>
> I think the proponents for adding obsolescence text to the other RECs
> should make a specific proposal for each REC.


I would support a notice akin to this, however, I am concerned about using
the term "obsolete" without having a normative substitute/replacement to
reference. I realize that the potential substitutes are not yet in REC
status, and will take some time to get there, and that it is possible to
add informative references to work in progress, but this doesn't quite
satisfy my notion of what obsolete means.
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 15:40:29 GMT

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