From Revising W3C Process Community Group
Let's take for instance documents like CSS2.0
(https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/), or CSS1
(https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1/), setting aside for a minute
that fact that they predate the current process or the current
patent policy. These have been replaced by newer documents which
occasionally conflict with them, and no errata is being maintained
(CSS2.1 does have errata when newer specs conflict, and not all of
it has been replaced, so it's not relevant here).
From a patent point of view, if the newer REC is a strict superset
of the old one, the old one no longer being covered by the patent
policy wouldn't be a problem, but if they have, as sometimes happens,
conflicting normative requirements, there could be cases of patents
having claims that cover one but not the other.
Is the current practice of including prominent (albeit ad-hoc)
warning notes in such specifications sufficient? Should they be
rescinded? Should they be Obsoleted? Should we create another
"Superseded" status? Does the answer depend on whether the
document in question predates the patent policy?
In short, my idea of a Superseded REC would be:
- the patent policy continues to apply (if it ever did)
- new implementations are discouraged, and SHOULD refer to the newer
document instead
- new TR documents MUST NOT normatively refer to it (informative
references for historical purposes are OK)
- The superseded REC MUST have (a) link(s) to the document(s)
that supersede it
- The superseded REC SHOULD state whether the document that replaces
it is merely an extension, or whether they have conflicting normative
requirements (this is only a should, because making it a must might
get in the way of marking as superseded RECs that should be, when it
is not known whether there are conflicts, and nobody is stepping up to
do the work needed to find out).
One key difference with Obsolete RECs is that the the only case I can
think of for a superseded REC to become a normal REC again is if the
document that superseded it is itself rescinded due to patent claims
Discussion
DS: [the process for obsoleting] was intended to cover this case.
If that’s not clear, we should make it so. I would like to keep it simple and
allow Obsolete to include “superseded” (e.g. by a spec. of another name,
another body, or the like).
FR: I agree that Superseded is effectively a subcase of Obsolete.
I think it could be useful to distinguish, but I don't think it is
strictly required
DMN: TL;DR: What you are calling Superseded seems to be a strict
subset of what the process document is trying to do by introducing
"obsolete" IMHO. And IMHO, I don't think there is enough importance in
recognising different subsets to justify distinguishing them in the
process. But there are some gems in here too…
Did you read Ian Jacobs' recent review comments [1]? He provided an omnibus
review so you need to wade through a lot of other stuff, but he made what
I think are some valuable comments on the proposal for Obsolete and Rescinded
Recs that I think are relevant to your points here
SZ Assessment: There were no further messages or request so it eeems
that No Action is Require.
No Action Require
