(Branden, your mails keep getting "{Spam?}" put in the header, which means
every time you post, you create a new thread for Gmail users. I guess it's
the list software to blame for changing subject lines, but it's making a
mess of this thread...)
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JanMar/thread.html#msg232
> for why we added a warning to the specification. It was thought that
> if we made a collective effort we can steer people away from depending
> on this. And I think from that perspective gradually phasing it out
> from the specification makes sense. With some other features we take
> the opposite approach, we never really defined them and are awaiting
> implementation experience to see whether they can be killed or need to
> be added (mutation events). I think it's fine to have several
> strategies for removing features. Hopefully over time we learn what is
> effective and what is not.
>
It's perfectly valid to warn people when they shouldn't use a feature.
Sync XHR is such a strong case of this that a spec would be deeply
neglegent not to have a warning.
My only issue is the wording: it doesn't make sense to have normative
language saying "you must not use this feature". This should be a
non-normative note warning that this shouldn't be used, not a normative
requirement telling people that they must not use it. (This is a more
general problem--the use of normative language to describe authoring
conformance criteria is generally confusing.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 19:46:04 UTC