W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2010

[Bug 10068] Deprecate noscript

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:36:08 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OVmmG-0003bt-2U@jessica.w3.org>

Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |shelleyp@burningbird.net

--- Comment #2 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-07-05 14:36:07 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I agree with the sentiment but do not agree with the proposed solution.
> In section 4.3.2 the spec already states that noscript is a "blunt instrument"
> and that "it's generally better to avoid using noscript". An example explaining
> how noscript can be avoided is also included.
> That is far more important than declaring noscript "deprecated". Declaring a
> widely used blunt instrument "deprecated" will not really help to change
> practice. It also would not make sense without defining the meaning of
> "deprecated" (the term currently is only used once in the spec for
> presentational markup in HTML4).

Words such as "blunt instrument" may be colorful, but with a specification,
they're useless. When the item is deprecated, there is a specific technical
meaning now associated with the item. Among the effects is that when a web page
using noscript is checked for conformance, a warning is issued about the use of
the item.

No warning is given when colorful terms are used to describe the item in the
spec, but the item is still left as valid and conforming. 

Unfortunately, you are correct about "deprecated", since the editor decided
this well known concept does not suit HTML5. Therefore, I imagine that Gez
would be willing to amend his but so that noscript is made "obsolete but
conforming", which is the HTML5 only version of deprecate.

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 Monday, 5 July 2010 14:36:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:51 UTC