Re: Consensus on the issue of deprecated APIs and sync decoding

On 21 Jun 2013, at 19:26, Ehsan Akhgari <> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Chris Rogers <> wrote:
>> Can we have a compromise, where the section is retained during a transitional period?  In the long run I can see why it would be removed, but I think you underestimate the number of developers who look to the spec for guidance.  Considering that these name changes will impact a large number of developers for all the browser vendors, it seems like we'd just be adding additional obstacles to them discovering the changes that we're making and adapting appropriately if the information is not even there.
> Sure.  It seems like we're all clear that this section of the spec is not targeted at implementers.  I think that we should really be pointing web developers to actual documentation, but that is an orthogonal goal.

Indeed, our spec is mainly aimed at implementers. If we don't want implementers to support a method, then it shouldn't be in the spec.

That said, nothing stops us from using the change log to mention the deprecated names in slightly more details than currently listed. Any developer looking for e.g noteOn would find it in that section. Would that be a better compromise?


This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 09:34:20 UTC