Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

DOM2 was not created for the purpose of reflecting the behavior in popular
implementations. So it would be misleading to use this rationale. I would
suggest the more neutral language I proposed above:

"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>
."

I believe this avoids any misreadings and has the intended effect of
warning authors/implementers about the status of DOM2 and its newer
formulation in progress.

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> I think the point that is most important to me to capture is that DOM2
> no longer reflects the behavior in many browsers.
>
> So how about:
>
> DOM2 is no longer updated and doesn't in all cases reflect behavior in
> popular implementations. DOM4 is the latest actively maintained and
> updated version. <link to DOM4>
>
> / Jonas
>
> 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 How about: "DOM2 is no longer updated.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>"
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>