- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:44:24 -0600
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Some comments on the DEPRECATION issues (33, 40, 99)... 33 -- agree. Change "should not be used" to something like "should be avoided by producers" (or "authors", or "generators", or find some other suitable word). 40 -- the first sentence of GL7 is "A deprecated feature is an existing feature that has been outdated by newer constructs or is no longer viable." I think it is our intention that this encompass "obsolete". So I propose that we agree with this comment, it was our intention all along that deprecated features include obsolete features, and that we will clarify this editorially. 99 -- I think that the commenter has misunderstood our intent in CP7.3 (and therefore some editorial clarification is probably in order), which reads: "If deprecation is used, define its relationships and interaction with other dimensions of variability." I think that CP7.3 requires that the spec define the relationship of the deprecation DoV itself (if there are deprecated features in the spec) to the other DoV. Commenter is assuming that "defines" means fully defining the deprecated feature, which may indeed be problematic. But, even if a feature has been deprecated because it is basically poorly defined or undefinable, it is still possible (in fact desirable) for the spec to address how the deprecation of the feature is related to, e.g., module definitions, discretionary features, etc. -Lofton.
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 10:42:45 UTC