W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > May 2016

Re: Obsoleting

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 09:01:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqX4Wxb8L358oucv-WfrMkq02xdD-oerO4frStUip93TOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
I think how previous specs use the term "obsolete" vs how we might define
"Obsolete" isn't that important.  And ideally, specifications that are new
versions should specifically state that they obsolete previous versions,
like HTML4 did.

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:34 AM, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:

> Oh, yes.  Maybe we need to go back to deprecated?
>
>
> > On May 7, 2016, at 18:50 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > A simple question.
> >
> > Is there any conflict between the current discussion of obsoleting and
> the previous usage of the term in W3C.  As one random example, HTML 4.01 in
> its Status says that it obsoletes HTML 4 [1].
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/
> >
> >
>
> Dave Singer
>
> singer@mac.com
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 9 May 2016 16:02:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 May 2016 16:02:27 UTC