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

Den 2013-06- 11:33:48 skrev Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>:

>
> On 21 Jun 2013, at 19:26, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhgari@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>  
>> 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?
>

I would agree on that.

/Marcus



-- 
Marcus Geelnard
Technical Lead, Mobile Infrastructure
Opera Software

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 11:44:52 UTC