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

Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

From: Jarred Nicholls <jarred@webkit.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:45:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CANufG2OQD=aS7LZe2AaXZrf2fc+byP=Bfnt=H6LzNyXBO18Nsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
2012/1/24 Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>

> 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 "DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete.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".

Clearly we need to be careful with our choice of words, though in this case
I wouldn't go as far as saying a stale document becomes a work in progress
when clearly the work in progress is a step forward and the state document
is the one no longer progressing.  But let's not perpetuate this
back-and-forth.  How about we get some proposed verbiage for individual
specs and discuss further at that point.  I think we all agree that a
notice in some form would be beneficial as long as its intent is clear.

> 2012/1/24 Bronislav Klučka <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
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:54:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:31 UTC