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

[Bug 10068] Suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:18:29 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OWVSH-0004Bo-UK@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068





--- Comment #10 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-07-07 14:18:29 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I think the objection to "deprecated" is that it implies that support will be
> removed in a future version.  Practically speaking, we can't drop support for
> any feature once it's widely used on the web, so this is misleading.  In the
> terminology that HTML5 currently uses, you could ask that noscript be
> non-conforming, or be conforming but raise a validator warning.  "Obsolete but
> conforming" is a subset of the latter, and isn't necessarily what you want (is
> it really obsolete, or we just think it's a bad idea?).

Hmm, on closer reading I was wrong to ask about moving your comment. Sorry.

I don't agree with the concept of making an element go directly from perfectly
valid to obsolete, without an intermediate stage, which is the entire purpose
behind the concept of deprecated. 

The use of deprecated in this regard has been very successful in many
programming languages. It is a way of gracefully beginning the move to remove
an element. 

I could agree with Gez wanting to deprecate noscript, with the intention of
making it obsolete in the future. I don't think making is abruptly and suddenly
obsolete is in the best interest of web developers.

-- 
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 Wednesday, 7 July 2010 14:18:31 UTC

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