Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

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 "DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete.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 "DOM2 (a stale document) is obsolete.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

I don't think the distinctions you are making here really matter. How
about: "DOM2 is no longer updated. DOM4 is under active development. <link
to DOM4>".

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.
>

You keep saying this throughout this thread without pointing to specifics.
It's impossible to argue with broad, sweeping generalizations like this. So
far, you have yet to point to one concrete organization/statute that cares
about REC status.