- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:05:40 -0500
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'Manu Sporny' <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 21:21 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Aug 1, 2009, at 8:07 PM, John Foliot wrote: [...] > > They are the only HTML related definitions that anyone can point to > > at W3C > > - they also apply to XHTML1 (and I believe, but will not state > > categorically, apply to earlier version of HTML as well - Dan C if > > you are > > following this?) > > Do you think it would help if HTML5 gave its own standalone > definitions of "obsolete", "obsolete but conforming" and "obsolete and > nonconforming"? I have my doubts. If we mean to convey the same thing as "deprecated" in HTML 4, let's use the same word. If we want validators to do more with it than was mandated by HTML 4, then very well. The top couple Google hits for "deprecated" are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation , which specifically notes HTML as an example http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/Deprecated.html which is consistent with HTML 4's usage. The definition that google offers, http://www.answers.com/deprecated notes "What are deprecated tags in context of HTML?" I don't think it's cost-effective to try to train our audience a new "obsolete but conforming" term. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 20:05:55 UTC