- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:15:10 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, Bronislav Klučka <Bronislav.Klucka@bauglir.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Glenn Adams wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Ojan, apparently you are not familiar with international or national > standards bodies. To mention just a couple, ANSI, ISO, and ITU care. I > could give you a list of hundreds if you wish, all having encoded such > rules into their formal processes. I've no problem with providing stale snapshots for use by standards organisations and governments stuck with outdated models. That's fine. Nobody is saying that we should remove DOM2 altogether. Indeed, I've been arguing we should publish snapshots _more often_. I say we take DOM4 right now and publish it as a REC, and then do that every 6 months. That's the best way to serve organisations that need this artificial "stability". The point is to make sure that people reading the stale documents know that that is what they are doing. That's why the proposal is merely to have a warning on the stale documents, not remove them altogether. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 20:15:35 UTC