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 How about: "DOM2 is no longer updated.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 "DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete.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. >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:50:47 UTC