Re: Obsolescence notices on old specifications, again

On 1/24/12 8:58 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> 2012/1/24 Ojan Vafai < <>>
>     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     How about: "DOM2 is no longer updated.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>"
> That doesn't really work for me. What would work for me is something like:
> "Although DOM Level 2 continues to be subject to Errata Management

Except it's not.  As far as I know, errata haven't been published for 
close to a decade now, and there are no plans to publish any.  This in 
spite of known things that need errata.

Or in other words, DOM Level 2 contains text that is known to be "wrong" 
and there are no plans to fix that in DOM Level 2.  That's the problem 
people have with treating it as normative, sort of.....

The rest of your proposed verbiage looks fine, but I guess I don't care 
that much about the verbiage here.


Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 20:12:57 UTC