W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Deprecated vs. obsolete

From: Krzysztof Maczyński <1981km@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:54:56 +0200
Message-ID: <0E7B8B48212045F285F105018F07DDBD@kmPC>
To: "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: <www-dom@w3.org>
>> There are features I'm soon going to suggest be deprecated but which for
>> legacy compatibility would need to remain MUST for implementors.
>> Requiring a complete and superior substitute before lifting MUST from implementors
>> is a good thing. Otherwise an attempt against which I was one of those
>> to protest in the following thread could happen here as well:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Mar/0097.html.
> That would defeat the purpose of this specification, which is to define 
> a set of features that are going to be implemented in all major 
> browsers, while warning authors which features are likely to work only 
> in legacy browsers.

I think you understood the quoted fragment of my post in a way I didn't mean.

In the first sentence I stated that I was going to suggest deprecation (in the other sense, whose understanding outside this ED and usefulness also for this ED I expounded) applied to something in addition (indeed, I already did in [1]).

In the second part I concurred with the need for the notion that currently the ED uses the term deprecated for, including a paraphrase of part of that definition. Above I argued that it be called obsolete instead of deprecated. HTML5 is not a good example because, if I recall correctly, the word deprecated was deemed politically incorrect when it was decided not to use it, so I didn't take HTML5's usage of obsolete into account. The Wikipedia article says "Although deprecated features remain in the current version (…) deprecation may indicate that the feature will be removed in the future. Features are deprecated—rather than being removed—in order to provide backward compatibility", so, as I understand it, it's exactly like I wrote - MUST implement, SHOULD NOT use. I didn't oppose to deprecating (or, as I would prefer it to be called in, obsoleting) anything in particular. Although I have my doubts whether a decent replacement for mutation events is being produced. Have you got any specific work in progress on your mind?

Best regards,


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2009JulSep/0351.html
Received on Saturday, 19 September 2009 20:55:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 10:46:15 UTC