- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:37:21 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068 --- Comment #3 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2010-07-05 14:37:21 --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > I agree with the sentiment but do not agree with the proposed solution. > > > > In section 4.3.2 the spec already states that noscript is a "blunt instrument" > > and that "it's generally better to avoid using noscript". An example explaining > > how noscript can be avoided is also included. > > > > That is far more important than declaring noscript "deprecated". Declaring a > > widely used blunt instrument "deprecated" will not really help to change > > practice. It also would not make sense without defining the meaning of > > "deprecated" (the term currently is only used once in the spec for > > presentational markup in HTML4). > > Words such as "blunt instrument" may be colorful, but with a specification, > they're useless. When the item is deprecated, there is a specific technical > meaning now associated with the item. Among the effects is that when a web page > using noscript is checked for conformance, a warning is issued about the use of > the item. > > No warning is given when colorful terms are used to describe the item in the > spec, but the item is still left as valid and conforming. > > Unfortunately, you are correct about "deprecated", since the editor decided > this well known concept does not suit HTML5. Therefore, I imagine that Gez > would be willing to amend his but so that noscript is made "obsolete but > conforming", which is the HTML5 only version of deprecate. Sorry: Therefore, I imagine that Gez would be willing to amend his _bug_ ... -- 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 Monday, 5 July 2010 14:37:23 UTC