W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Conformance and Deprecated Features

From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:04:38 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
To: "david_marston@us.ibm.com" <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
cc: "www-qa@w3.org" <www-qa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.43.0201301101330.281-100000@robla350.dev.prognet.com>
This is a good point.  It seems there's a couple things that make sense:

1.  QA-WG comes up with the menu of recommendations in the style from your
previous mail, picking a preferred, but not mandated option. '

2.  It may be worth raising this issue with the W3C TAG


On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, david_marston@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Rob Lanphier writes:
> >On the user agent side, I'd go further and state that the user agent
> >to the version X+1 MUST implement deprecated features.
> I can see the merit in the idea, but I don't think that a generic QA
> group can require that all substantive WGs adopt this policy. If a
> proverbial Higher Authority dictates that this should be the policy
> for all *user agents*, after suitable deliberation, then the policy
> can trickle down to the QAWG. It still might not be the best policy
> for the broader class of all W3C-Rec-compliant software whose input
> may have deprecated features. The respective substantive WGs should
> consider how the deprecated features are detectable and the options
> available to developers in the real world.
> If a developer wants to produce two product variations, the high
> performance one requiring modern input and the omnivorous one that
> understands all the deprecated input but is slower, we don't want to
> drive the former product out of the W3C compliance realm. In some
> cases, a WG may be able to define a conformance level for each. The
> QAWG should allow substantive WGs to choose that policy.
> .................David Marston
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 14:03:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC