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

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:31:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4F20122A.2080208@nokia.com>
To: ext Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Björn Höhrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Hi All - I just chatted with Ms2ger in IRC about his proposal [1]. 
Ms2ger will submit proposed text to the list so we should probably hold 
off on additional comments until we get that proposal.

(I agree rescinding is not what we want to do for these specs.)

-AB

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JanMar/0245.html

On 1/24/12 7:26 AM, ext Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:02:55 +0100, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/24/2012 01:58 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>> * Ms2ger wrote:
>>>> The recent message to www-dom about DOM2HTML [1] made me realize 
>>>> that we still haven't added warnings to obsolete DOM specifications 
>>>> to hopefully avoid that people use them as a reference.
>>>
>>> If you want to say more than that the specifications are no longer 
>>> being
>>> maintained and which newer specifications might contain more recent de-
>>> finitions for the features covered you will have to create a process 
>>> for
>>> that first (it would require Advisory Committee review for instance, as
>>> otherwise you are likely to create unnecessary drama).
>>
>> I should have been clearer; this is indeed all I intend to say.
>
> OK, this looks like the sort of message that Opera would support. As 
> Art said, I think we need individual proposals per spec.
>
> And I am not sure that rescinding specs we don't like much is 
> necessarily a good idea.
>
> cheers
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 14:32:05 GMT

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