- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:21:23 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068 --- Comment #58 from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> 2010-08-24 07:21:21 --- (In reply to comment #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. Well … I'm not quite clear on the practical significance of these distinctions at this point? Gez's comments implies there are features or techniques that are replacing/can replace "noscript" and solve its class of problems significantly better, thus allowing the spec to push it down the obsolescence track. The question of how far (deprecated/obsolete-but-conforming/obsolete) we wish to push "noscript" down that track is academic if these superior features/techniques do not exist - we shouldn't be pushing it down the track at all, if they do not. Lee, Adam, and I are suggesting that these features/techniques do not exist for some problems. There's another viewpoint that very widely used features shouldn't be put on the obsolescence track even if there are better alternatives, but while I think this is at least reasonable and seems to have been the original justification for "noscript"[*], it's hardly a consistently applied principle, as the case of presentational markup suggests. [*] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-April/014396.html -- 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 07:21:25 UTC