- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:17:11 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 20:17:59 UTC
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 1/24/12 8:58 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> >> 2012/1/24 Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org <mailto:ojan@chromium.org>> >> >> >> 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 How about: "DOM2 is no longer updated.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. > As long as the W3C Process Document [1] applies, DOM2 is "subject" to Errata Management until such a time as it is formally Rescinded. It matters not whether there are any plans to publish errata or not. [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 20:17:59 UTC