I think the point that is most important to me to capture is that DOM2 no longer reflects the behavior in many browsers.
So how about: DOM2 is no longer updated and doesn't in all cases reflect behavior in popular implementations. DOM4 is the latest actively maintained and updated version. <link to DOM4> / Jonas 2012/1/24 Ojan Vafai <[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 How about: "DOM2 is no longer updated.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>" > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm sorry, but for some, saying DOM2 (a REC) = DOM4 (a WIP), is the same >> as saying DOM2 is a WIP. This is because the former can be read as saying >> that the normative content of DOM2 is now replaced with DOM4. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by "[DOM2] is a work on which progress has >> stopped". DOM2 is a REC, and is only subject to errata [1] and rescinding >> [2]. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-rescind >> >> I'm not sure where the proposed obsolescence message falls in terms of [1] >> or [2]. Perhaps you could clarify, since presumably the process document >> will apply to any proposed change. >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Ms2ger <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 01/24/2012 08:33 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >>>> >>>> The problem is that the proposal (as I understand it) is to insert >>>> something like: >>>> >>>> "DOM2 (a REC) is obsolete. Use DOM4 (a work in progress)." >>>> >>>> This addition is tantamount (by the reading of some) to demoting the >>>> status >>>> of DOM2 to "a work in progress". >>> >>> >>> Not at all; it's a work on which progress has stopped long ago. >>> >> >
