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

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:49:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CANMdWTtw8eamkjmbX8NCFBc6Wsa47b=bWadAHmwvMQX7395AMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: (wrong string) ka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Can we just compromise on the language here? I don't think we'll find
agreement on the proper way to do spec work.

How about: "DOM2 is no longer updated. DOM4 is the latest actively
maintained version. <link to DOM4>"

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> 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 "DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete.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 19:50:47 GMT

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