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 14:37:21 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OVmnR-0003eG-VL@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068





--- Comment #3 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-07-05 14:37:21 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (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.

Sorry:

Therefore, I imagine that Gez would be willing to amend his _bug_ ...

-- 
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 14:37:23 UTC

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