- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 13:42:36 +0100
- To: "Mark Moore" <mark.moore@notlimited.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
* Mark Moore wrote: >A (hopefully) simple compromise would be to clearly mark the CSS2 spec as >superseded by CSS2.1. RFC's have used this technique quite successfully. >The older documents remain available, but the superseding RFC is clearly >identified at the top. Once published, RFCs are never changed, only the obsoleting document indentifies the obsoleted documents (as does the rfc-index document). And it is not that simple actually, consider an RFC is published that obsoletes RFC 2119 and re-defines "MUST" to mean "MAY" and "SHOULD" to mean "MUST", etc., would this mean pretty much any internet or web software would become non-conforming? No, not really. >This modification of CSS2 could be done using the same mechanism and in the >same revision cycle Jim Ley (possibly?), or someone else uses to remove the >"proposed errata" from the existing document. See http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#rec-modify on how the "proposed errata" bit can be removed (assuming you mean making them normative as opposed to discarding the maintenance efforts). See also http://www.w3.org/2004/02/02-pubrules.html#head which specifies require- ments on revision numbers (not that these mandatory requirements are followed or make sense...) -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 12:43:04 UTC