W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Obsolete, deprecated, et al

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:05:40 -0500
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'Manu Sporny' <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-Id: <1249329940.20177.31.camel@pav.lan>
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 21:21 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2009, at 8:07 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> > They are the only HTML related definitions that anyone can point to  
> > at W3C
> > - they also apply to XHTML1 (and I believe, but will not state
> > categorically, apply to earlier version of HTML as well - Dan C if  
> > you are
> > following this?)
> Do you think it would help if HTML5 gave its own standalone  
> definitions of "obsolete", "obsolete but conforming" and "obsolete and  
> nonconforming"?

I have my doubts.

If we mean to convey the same thing as "deprecated" in HTML 4,
let's use the same word. If we want validators to do more with
it than was mandated by HTML 4, then very well.

The top couple Google hits for "deprecated" are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation , which specifically
  notes HTML as an example

 which is consistent with HTML 4's usage.

The definition that google offers,
  "What are deprecated tags in context of HTML?"

I don't think it's cost-effective to try to train our audience
a new "obsolete but conforming" term.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 20:05:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:49 UTC