- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:28:56 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068
Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |shelleyp@burningbird.net
--- Comment #55 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2010-08-24 02:28:55 ---
(In reply to comment #53)
>
> "widely used" merely means we need to define how user agents should treat it.
>
> > Declaring it obsolete when it's not is silly and counter productive.
>
> Nobody in this thread would disagree with that, but then Gez's claim is that
> "noscript" /is/ obsolete.
Actually, Gez originally wanted to deprecate noscript. But as earlier comments
in the thread indicate, the concept of "deprecation" isn't currently supported
in HTML5. So Gez changed the title to obsolete but conforming, which is about
the closest thing we have to deprecation in HTML5.
Gez will pop in and say what he wants, but he didn't claim that noscript is
obsolete. I suggest reading the original comment to the bug to discern his
original intent.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 02:28:57 UTC