Re: [Glossary] Deprecated, Deprecation, Deprecate / Obsolete

At 7:49 AM -0400 6/29/04, Karl Dubost wrote:
>Hi,
>
>We don't have a definition in the "QA glossary" [1] for Deprecate and Obsolete
>The "HTML 4.01" [2] Specification has the most complete definition 
>of them, I think.
>
>Lynne has given for "addition to the QA glossary" [3]:
>
>=======
>* Deprecated Feature
>An existing feature that has become outdated by a newer construct 
>and is no longer viable.
>* Obsolete
>Feature that is no longer defined in the specification.
>=======

There is an actual current issue that turns, in part, on the concepts
that are bound to these terms.

The CSS 2.1 CR draft states that the 'aural' media type is 'deprecated.' [6]

The Protocols and Formats WG has questioned this in the light of the
immaturity of the new CSS3 work that CSS WG expects (and PFWG agrees)
should eventually supplant the CSS2 definitions.

CSS tried to reassure us that "this does not mean it is obsolete,
this is only intended in the technical sense." The issue is currently
unresolved.

Here, I interpret "the technical sense" as here meant to be:

deprecated: future versions are planned not to be upward-compatible
as regards this feature.

The use of 'viable' in Lynn's language is in this domain so broad and
subjective as to merit being banned from use in a definition of a
technical term in this domain. The definition text offered for
technical terms should meet a yet higher standard of
well-defined-terminology than even the body text of a technical
specification or report.

What happens if we baseline the HTML text as a definition?

Since the 'aural' media type is not made unnecessary by *current*
(that is to say equally or more mature) technology, but rather is
only _slated to be made unnecessary by planned but as yet immature_
technology, it could be argued that it is too soon to say in a PR or
Recommendation text that the 'aural' media type designation is
'deprecated' because its function is still valid in terms of the best
available current W3C Recommendation.

Since continuity of formatting property notation is clearly a concern
[7] and this question is correctly being raised here about a
consistent theory of change control across W3C Specification
version-sequences, perhaps we should link the two threads.

Al

>What do we mean by viable. HTML 4.01 says that the developer should 
>support it, which is very dependent on the class of product
>
>For Obsolete, I would say:
>Feature from a previous version of the technology which is no longer 
>defined in the speficiation.
>
>
>
>* Do we agree with the definition there?
>* We definitely have to define a short definition for the QA 
>Glossary, which will be more general.
>* Do we create specific topic on the wiki for it?
>
>
>
>Quick understanding:
>
>Deprecated:
>	* New feature exists that covers the old feature
>	* Should not be used anymore by producer tools.
>	* Must be supported by consumer tools.
>
>Use case scenarios with techno FooML 1.0 to FooML 2.0
>
>					  read				 save
>	A Doc FooML 1.0 ------->  Producer  -------> Doc FooML ?
>	B Doc FooML 1.0 ------->  Reader
>
>What's happening?
>	- in the cases A and B
>	- for obsolete and for deprecated?
>	- With Producer/Reader supporting and/or not 1.0/2.0
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------
>* "Deprecated" [3]
>
>A deprecated element or attribute is one that has been outdated by 
>newer constructs. Deprecated elements are defined in the reference 
>manual in appropriate locations, but are clearly marked as 
>deprecated. Deprecated elements may become obsolete in future 
>versions of HTML.
>
>  User agents should continue to support deprecated elements for 
>reasons of backward compatibility.
>
>Definitions of elements and attributes clearly indicate which are deprecated.
>
>This specification includes examples that illustrate how to avoid 
>using deprecated elements. In most cases these depend on user agent 
>support for style sheets. In general, authors should use style 
>sheets to achieve stylistic and formatting effects rather than HTML 
>presentational attributes. HTML presentational attributes have been 
>deprecated when style sheet alternatives exist (see, for example, 
>[CSS1]).
>------------------------------------------------
>
>
>------------------------------------------------
>* "Obsolete" [4]
>
>An obsolete element or attribute is one for which there is no 
>guarantee of support by a user agent. Obsolete elements are no 
>longer defined in the specification, but are listed for historical 
>purposes in the changes section of the reference manual.
>------------------------------------------------
>
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/QA/glossary
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/
>[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/conform.html#deprecated
>[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/conform.html#obsolete
>[5] 
>http://www.w3.org/mid/5.1.0.14.2.20040628080853.01e7bbc0@mailserver.nist.gov

[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/aural.html#aural-media-group
[7] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/formatting-properties

>
>
>
>--
>Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
>W3C Conformance Manager
>*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
>
>
>content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
>	name=PGP.sig
>content-description: Ceci est une signature électronique PGP
>content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
>content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:PGP 24.sig (pgDS/    ) (0005B70C)

Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 09:53:11 UTC