W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > June 2004

Re: [SpecGL Draft] D4 Identify obsolete features

From: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:10:40 +0200
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1088583040.1498.208.camel@stratustier>
Hello Karl,

Glad to see we can't stop you :) Way to go!

Le mar 29/06/2004 ŗ 20:57, Karl Dubost a ťcrit :
> Proposal:
> ---------------------------------------------
> Good Practice:
> 	Identify obsolete features
> Meaning:
> 	A feature which has been deprecated in a previous version was at risk. 
> You might consider to make it obsolete in your present version of the 
> technology.

s/present/current/ (or new)

>  It is necessary to give a list of obsolete features.

s/necessary/really useful/ ?

> Care:
> 	It gives a clear message to users and developers that obsolete 
> features are forbidden and not part of the technology anymore.


>  It will 
> help to avoid the creation of documents mixing old and new techniques 
> which will be invalid.

s/will help to/helps/
I guess documents are only one example of possible misuse of obsolete
features, so I guess a "for instance" would be appropriate.
Also, I would avoid to use the term "invalid", since that's not defined;
let's talk about non-conformant.

> 	It helps to avoid name clashing.

s/helps to/helps/

>  When an extension to a technology is 
> created, developers will use nouns for their extended features name. 

Hmm... I guess you're thinking to a specific case, but I don't think you
can claim generally that extensions developers use nouns to name the new

> Giving the name of obsolete features will help developers to avoid 
> using the names of previous features which are now obsolete.

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/

Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 04:11:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:33 UTC