- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:26:24 -0400
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "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 Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:05:40 -0400, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> 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.
...
> I don't think it's cost-effective to try to train our audience
> a new "obsolete but conforming" term.
Right. In fact it flies in the face of various principles we generally
regard as sensible (paving cowpaths, maintaining backwards compatibility,
etc) in design of the spec, that would seem to hold at a terminological
level as well as applying to elements and attributes.
I think it is not worth the effort of trying to establish new ways of
saying things that are already understood. We have enough work to teach
people the things that are actually new...
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 20:27:38 UTC