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 12:43:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+eCU2BS7+nEGHQvTWM1nZsh5GHBRA3==BDr9=C+oHJ-Xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
Cc: Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
I'm sorry, but for some, saying DOM2 (a REC) = DOM4 (a WIP), is the same as
saying DOM2 is a WIP. This is because the former can be read as saying that
the normative content of DOM2 is now replaced with DOM4.

I'm not sure what you mean by "[DOM2] is a work on which progress has
stopped". DOM2 is a REC, and is only subject to errata [1] and rescinding
[2].

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-rescind

I'm not sure where the proposed obsolescence message falls in terms of [1]
or [2]. Perhaps you could clarify, since presumably the process document
will apply to any proposed change.

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/24/2012 08:33 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>> The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert
>> something like:
>>
>> "DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete. Use DOM4 (a work in progress)."
>>
>> This addition is tantamount (by the reading of some) to demoting the
>> status
>> of DOM2 to "a work in progress".
>>
>
> Not at all; it's a work on which progress has stopped long ago.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:44:40 GMT

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