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 13:21:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dJMSAo0c0FekyG78pGh0vb7HWOUmT63Uc=5j-PPRodFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Ian, I agree with the sentiment of your response ("take DOM4 right now and
publish it as a REC"). And, were it not for the W3C Process Document, we
might do just that. However, for the time being, we need to work within the
process document. The best way to do that is attempt to (as rapidly as
possible) obtain consensus on publishing DOM4 as a LC then quickly progress
to CR. I personally (and the member I represent) will do whatever I (we)
can to assist in that process. And the same applies for the other WIP DOM
related specs.

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > You keep saying this throughout this thread without pointing to
> > > specifics. It's impossible to argue with broad, sweeping
> > > generalizations like this. So far, you have yet to point to one
> > > concrete organization/statute that cares about REC status.
> >
> > Ojan, apparently you are not familiar with international or national
> > standards bodies. To mention just a couple, ANSI, ISO, and ITU care. I
> > could give you a list of hundreds if you wish, all having encoded such
> > rules into their formal processes.
>
> I've no problem with providing stale snapshots for use by standards
> organisations and governments stuck with outdated models. That's fine.
> Nobody is saying that we should remove DOM2 altogether. Indeed, I've been
> arguing we should publish snapshots _more often_. I say we take DOM4 right
> now and publish it as a REC, and then do that every 6 months. That's the
> best way to serve organisations that need this artificial "stability".
>
> The point is to make sure that people reading the stale documents know
> that that is what they are doing. That's why the proposal is merely to
> have a warning on the stale documents, not remove them altogether.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 20:22:23 GMT

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