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

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

From: Andres Riofrio <riofrios@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:03:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOmDhTOCn7577O6vs1xFMfrey-CbHDxPu3yCvSks-HPtTVVCgg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
I like Glenn's idea of being verbose to avoid ambiguity. It is a
spec---might as well spell out the consequences of the notice. :)

Andres Riofrio
<riofrios@gmail.com>


2012/1/24 Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>

>
> 2012/1/24 Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.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 How about: "DOM2 is no longer updated.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>"
>>
>
> That doesn't really work for me. What would work for me is something like:
>
> "Although DOM Level 2 continues to be subject to Errata Management<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#errata>,
> it is no longer being actively maintained. Content authors and implementers
> are encouraged to consider the use of newer formulations of the Document
> Object Model, including DOM4 <http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/>, which is
> currently in process for Advancing a Technical Report to Recommendation<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-advance>
> ."
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 20:03:44 GMT

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