On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 1/24/12 8:58 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> >> 2012/1/24 Ojan Vafai <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> >> 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 How about: "DOM2 is no longer updated.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as the W3C Process Document [1] applies, DOM2 is "subject" to Errata Management until such a time as it is formally Rescinded.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/
