Re: [w3c/WebPlatformWG] CFC: Make previous versions of HTML and XHTML obsoleteCFC: Make previous versions of HTML and XHTML obsolete (#86)

This CFC received numerous positive responses, and two partial objections.

The objections were to making HTML 5.0 obsolete, on the basis that it is still referenced by other specifications, used by existing tools, and as a reference point for authors.

When a new version of a specification reaches Recommendation, it becomes the authoritative version. HTML 5.1 replaced HTML 5.0, which replaced HTML 4.01 before that, and so on back down the line. Marking previous versions of a specification obsolete is just a formal recognition of this.

Marking a version obsolete does not prevent it from being used. An obsolete specification has the same status as a Recommendation, it is still covered by the W3C Patent Policy, and it doesn't change unless substantive errata are discovered (especially if those errata have already been addressed in a subsequent version of the specification).

The purpose of marking a specification obsolete, is to make it clear that it is no longer the authoritative version, and to point forward to the version that is. So, if a tool, publishing platform, or other specification uses a previous version of a specification like HTML 5.0, it can continue to do so without any problem. But by making HTML 5.0 and all its predecessors obsolete, we make it easy for someone learning HTML for the first time, someone who is creating a new tool or updating an existing one, or someone editing a current specification, to identify the latest authoritative version.

The chairs therefore do not feel the objections are relevant to obsolete specifications. Had the proposal been to rescind these specifications instead, then the concerns would have been well founded. The definition of a rescinded specification can be found in [section 6.9 of the W3C Process](https://www.w3.org/2017/Process-20170301/#Reports):
>"A Rescinded Recommendation is an entire Recommendation that W3C no longer endorses, and believes is unlikely to ever be restored to Recommendation Status.">

Thus, the CFC passes, and the chairs will now ask the Director to initiate an AC review of this proposal (as required by the W3C Process).

The chairs are also aware that this is the first time a WG has followed this part of the W3C Process, so all the comments we received were helpful, thank you.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/WebPlatformWG/issues/86#issuecomment-316506635