- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:56:17 +0100
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Larry Masinter wrote: > ... > Rather, it seems preferable from a tool and validity point of view to > leaving them in the specification as conforming, but marking them as > deprecated; “deprecated” in the sense of “could be dropped in the > future”, possibly designating them as SHOULD NOT be used in content, > SHOULD BE ignored by browsers. > ... Optimally, a "deprecated" comes with instructions what to do instead. For instance, if this WG truly believes that link/@rel=profile is better than head/@profile, then that should be noted in the spec, and the WG should discuss this with current users of head/@profile (specs, tools, whatnot). BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 08:57:03 UTC