W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > January 2021

Re: [csswg-drafts] css should define and use consistent terminology for words like "deprecated", "obsolete" (#5644)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 00:41:33 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-755800006-1609980092-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `css should define and use consistent terminology for words like "deprecated", "obsolete"`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Close no change but open issues on spec areas where it's not clear what the intent was for a deprecation`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: css should define and use consistent terminology for words like "deprecated", "obsolete"<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5644<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Raised a while back by MIke Smith indirectly b/c he was confused. Used deprecated in a few places and the meaning has changed over time. Should we use deprecated for all the meaning or do we be more specific<br>
&lt;dael> florian: COuld be using this feature is bad idea but we have it or this feature is old bad name but we're documenting it. Or we're documenting it but browsers are removing it. Or in HTML we're not spec this feature but we're telling you it used to exist.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: The first two are the ones we use. Maybe that's fine. Maybe we should pick it to mean one.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: No strong opinions on which way, but this is the question<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Reason Mike Smith reacted is we documented as deprecated something with an old name but he thought we meant this is old do not use. THat's where potential need to distinguish came from<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: WE use in English meaning to express disapproval. If an impl required to have it separately documented. Either must impl or should impl. We're clear. If we dissourage users that's separate term. Deprecated is basically a value judgement and an indication of preference from WG<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I think we're clear on what's required and what's discouraged.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: As long as we keep being explicit for deprecated feature nomrative requirements we're good.<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/to have it/to have it, it's/<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I'm fine closing no change, but it was raised<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/documented/documented via RFC2119 terminology/<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: I think it's important to distinguish rec for author and instructions for impl. Maybe something being obsolete should only be things in spec and deprecation is for UAs.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: WE do distunguish but we do with explicit text, not keywords<br>
&lt;tantek> should we escalate to the TAG to provide a more precise definition of "deprecate(d)" and "obsolete(d)" for consistent use across W3C specs?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We say UA must or should and users should or should not. I don't think we use it in the place of must or should. Maybe some image angles will become obsolete. Otheriwse we use deprecated where we prefer people didn't use it but you might have to in certain contexts because it's out there<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: A clear distinction between browsers might have to impl and authors might have to use is useful<br>
&lt;tantek> q?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: We absolutely should. But do we do it through termonology or through text?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: We say it's deprecated and you have to impl or and you shouldn't impl. THe conformace requirements is expressed with RFC2119<br>
&lt;tantek> should we stop using those terms then?<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: I think better explained with examples<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: WE do most often add text describing our intent. In cases where it's not clear we can open issues to make that better. But not come up with specific spec terms<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I think I would rather not a sepcific term b/c sometimes people don't follow links for meaning so it could hide things that are in prose<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Prop: Close no change but open issues on spec areas where it's not clear what the intent was for a deprecation<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: [missed]<br>
&lt;tantek> tantek: should we discourage future use of those terms?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: When we same something must be impl but authors shouldn't use...must be impl like system colors but this is a bad idea so it shoudln't be in your css vocab<br>
&lt;dael> tantek: should we discourage editors from using deprecated or obsoleted?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I don't think so. They have useful meanings in English<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: They're useful terms we're just not loading them with anything becides standard english meaning<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Objections?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Close no change but open issues on spec areas where it's not clear what the intent was for a deprecation<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5644#issuecomment-755800006 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2021 00:41:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:31:38 UTC