W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Obsoleting some specifications

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:19:43 +0100
To: <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <34d4cb49-52b5-9488-0540-289066603b29@nag.co.uk>

 > MathML 1 and 2 - there is a version 3

As you note the Math WG is currently in cold storage however you could 
flag this on the www-math list.

Speaking personally I would say mathml 1 , 1.1 and 2 (1st edition) could 
definitely be obsoleted, these were specified before the bulk of math 
characters were added to Unicode so used the placeholder code points in 
the private use area which were used for the stix submission.

MathML 2.0 2nd edition incorporated the (then) newly added math code 
points and so matches mathml3 (and html5) in its character definitions.

MathML 3.0 2nd edition was a compatible extension of MathML 3 1st 
edition (mostly just authorising the use in HTML as opposed to XML, and 
so adjusting the wording to be less XML-centric) so I don't think 
anything would be lost if the first edition was marked obsolete in 
favour of the second edition.

That would leave MathML 2.0 2nd edition and MathML 3.0 2nd edition.

In these versions MathML 2 is with only very minor exceptions a 
compatible subset of MathML 3, and so it possibly makes sense to leave 
that so any implementations that don't implement the additional features 
can claim they support MathML 2 rather than support some MathML 3 
subset, but they could probably claim that anyway. I'm not clear to be 
honest what are the implications of marking a spec obsolete, is it just 
that it gets a banner added in place saying that it is obsolete (and 
pointing at the newer spec) or is there more to it?

Note that MathML 2 has (always had) a forward reference to the latest 
MathML Recommendation so (unlike some other REC that have later versions)

MathML 2

already has a link to "Latest MathML Recommendation" in the front matter
which links (currently) to MathML 3 2nd edition.

so anyone who is reading that spec should know it has been superseded 
whether or not it is marked obsolete.

(co-editor of the specs, even if there isn't currently a WG)
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 22:20:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:15 UTC