Re: The meaning of "obsolete" in HTML5 (was Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll)

>> I hope this helps clarify how HTML5 handles deprecation and 
>> obsolescence. It's not quite the same as HTML4, but I think the 
>> categories still do what we need.
> I must disagree about the perceived need, and I believe that summary 
> demonstrates the failure of the new terminology. I also believe that, 
> as others begin to see other attributes and elements have been made 
> "obsolete" in HTML, there will be more confusion and consternation. 
> Redefining terms such as obsolete can do that.
> Eventually I hope to present a fuller argument about my view to the 
> group at large.
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
> Shelley

PS I also wanted to add that John mentioned about summary being 
deprecated if the older use of the terms (deprecated/obsolete) were 
restored to HTML 5. In that I would disagree with him, at least at this 

Again, one specific use of deprecated in HTML 4 was to highlight that an 
attribute or element should no longer be used, and that a person should 
use A instead, with the understanding that A, provides the same 
functionality as the attribute or element that is being deprecated.

At this time there is no replacement for summary. There are some other 
documentation techniques in the HTML 5 specification, but they don't 
really replace the functionality of summary. Some folk have suggested 
using these documentation techniques, and then using the style attribute 
and setting the visibility of the text to hidden, which _technically_ 
would replace the same functionality. However, I don't see something so 
complicated as really being a viable replacement.

That's not to say in the next month or two, folks might come up with a 
preferred replacement for summary. If so, then deprecating summary, as 
deprecating is meant in HTML 4, would make a great deal of sense.


Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 03:14:29 UTC