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

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

From: Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:10:06 +0100
Message-ID: <4F1FC6EE.1060104@bauglir.com>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org
Hello,
since when is obsolete the same as work in progress?
How does HTML4 (can be considered obsolete) the same as HTML5(in 
progress)? It only means that new features are added to HTML5 not to 
HTML 4 and any error in HTML 4 is ignored...

This discussion is about using word "obsolete" in simple sentence, that 
is clear to developers or usage of language that would be more 
comfortable to politicians and high management, some complicated 
sentence, that is more "politically correct". Again the question is: 
should we care?
Should W3C creates new mechanism to reflect current speed of progress 
instead of bound progress by decade and 1/2 old processes?
Should W3C creates some guidelines for understanding current state of 
work for external entities, that those have to understand that specs can 
become obsolete, that people can be explicitly discouraged from 
implementing them and is can happen anytime to any spec without any 
control of such external entities?

On 24.1.2012 20:33, 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 "DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete.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".
>
> 2012/1/24 Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com 
> <mailto:Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>>
>
>     Hello,
>     I do understand the objection, but how relevant should it be here?
>     If some regulation/law dictates that work must follow e.g. DOM 2,
>     than it does not matter that it's obsolete... The law takes
>     precedence here regardless of status of the document. Technically
>     in such case one don't need to worry himself about any progress or
>     status of such document or specification.
>
>
>     On 23.1.2012 19:06, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
>         I object to adding such notice until all of the proposed
>         replacement specs reach REC status.
>
>         G.
>
>     Brona
>
>

Brona
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 09:10:33 GMT

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