Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, 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 "DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete.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".
>
> It should be:
>
> "DOM2 (a stale document) is obsolete. Use DOM4 (a work that is actively
> maintained)."
>

It would be more accurate perhaps to say that DOM4 is "a work that is under
active development". In the minds of most readers, "maintenance" is an
errata process that follows completion (REC status).


>
> It doesn't "demote" DOM2 to "a work in progress", because "a work in
> progress" is a step _up_ from where DOM2 is now.


Many (most?) government, industry, and business activities that formally
utilize W3C specifications would view a work in progress as less mature
than a REC. That results in the form being assigned a lower value than the
latter. So, yes, demote is the correct word.

I understand your agenda is to reverse this way of thinking. I have no
objection to that agenda per se. But it is not an agenda shared by many
members of the W3C. If you think I'm wrong about this, then I'd like to see
a poll or ballot that quantifies the membership's perspective on this issue.