W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > August 2010

[Bug 10068] Suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:21:23 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Onnox-0007LT-TF@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068





--- Comment #58 from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>  2010-08-24 07:21:21 ---
(In reply to comment #55)
> (In reply to comment #53)
> > 
> > "widely used" merely means we need to define how user agents should treat it.
> > 
> > > Declaring it obsolete when it's not is silly and counter productive.
> > 
> > Nobody in this thread would disagree with that, but then Gez's claim is that
> > "noscript" /is/ obsolete.
> 
> Actually, Gez originally wanted to deprecate noscript. But as earlier comments
> in the thread indicate, the concept of "deprecation" isn't currently supported
> in HTML5. So Gez changed the title to obsolete but conforming, which is about
> the closest thing we have to deprecation in HTML5. 
> 
> Gez will pop in and say what he wants, but he didn't claim that noscript is
> obsolete. I suggest reading the original comment to the bug to discern his
> original intent.

Well  I'm not quite clear on the practical significance of these distinctions
at this point?

Gez's comments implies there are features or techniques that are replacing/can
replace "noscript" and solve its class of problems significantly better, thus
allowing the spec to push it down the obsolescence track. The question of how
far (deprecated/obsolete-but-conforming/obsolete) we wish to push "noscript"
down that track is academic if these superior features/techniques do not exist
- we shouldn't be pushing it down the track at all, if they do not.

Lee, Adam, and I are suggesting that these features/techniques do not exist for
some problems.

There's another viewpoint that very widely used features shouldn't be put on
the obsolescence track even if there are better alternatives, but while I think
this is at least reasonable and seems to have been the original justification
for "noscript"[*], it's hardly a consistently applied principle, as the case of
presentational markup suggests.

[*] http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-April/014396.html

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 07:21:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:21 UTC