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

Re: Obsoleting

From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 21:56:20 +0100
To: "David Singer" <singer@mac.com>
Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.yg7ob6vas7agh9@widsith.local>
On Mon, 09 May 2016 17:11:18 +0100, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:

>
>> On May 9, 2016, at 9:59 , Chaals McCathie Nevile  
>> <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 May 2016 16:34:19 +0100, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, yes.  Maybe we need to go back to deprecated?
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> HTML 4.01 made HTML 4.0 obsolete. HTML 5 may have made HTML 4 obsolete.
>>
>
> Right.  And that’s exactly NOT the case we’re discussing here.  We’re  
> discussing where the only (last) spec in a chain is something we no  
> longer recommend. We don’t want to use this process to state that HTML5  
> makes HTML4.1 obsolete ;-(

I agree...

>> WALL/WURFL and the W3C Device Description work were among the factors  
>> that made CC/PP obsolete.
>>
>> None of which matters much in determining whether it is or is not  
>> obsolete.
>>
>> So I don't think there is an issue here. And I think "dbsolete" is  
>> clearer plainer english that "deprecated", which I only know of as a  
>> term amongst "spec-heads”.
>
> agreed, and why we switched.  but we’re causing confusion.  Is there a  
> third word meaning ‘not recommended’?

I don't think we are causing confusion. The fact that a spec published by  
W3C is a specific thing that makes another obsolete doesn't conflict with  
the fact that a given spec may be obsolete.

We're working on a process that allows us to point out something is  
obsolete without having to provide a specific replacement - effectively  
enabling us to reflect reality better without a pile of unnecessary  
administrative hurdles.

So the term "obsolete" is fine for both cases, even though there are  
different ways that things come to be called obsolete.

cheers

>> cheers
>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>
> Dave Singer
>
> singer@mac.com
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
  chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 9 May 2016 19:59:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 May 2016 19:59:23 UTC