- From: David Singer <singer@mac.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 09:11:18 -0700
- To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
> On May 9, 2016, at 9:59 , Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > > On Mon, 09 May 2016 16:34:19 +0100, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote: > >> Oh, yes. Maybe we need to go back to deprecated? > > I don't think so. > > HTML 4.01 made HTML 4.0 obsolete. HTML 5 may have made HTML 4 obsolete. > Right. And that’s exactly NOT the case we’re discussing here. We’re discussing where the only (last) spec in a chain is something we no longer recommend. We don’t want to use this process to state that HTML5 makes HTML4.1 obsolete ;-( > WALL/WURFL and the W3C Device Description work were among the factors that made CC/PP obsolete. > > None of which matters much in determining whether it is or is not obsolete. > > So I don't think there is an issue here. And I think "dbsolete" is clearer plainer english that "deprecated", which I only know of as a term amongst "spec-heads”. agreed, and why we switched. but we’re causing confusion. Is there a third word meaning ‘not recommended’? > > cheers > >>> On May 7, 2016, at 18:50 , Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>> A simple question. >>> >>> Is there any conflict between the current discussion of obsoleting and the previous usage of the term in W3C. As one random example, HTML 4.01 in its Status says that it obsoletes HTML 4 [1]. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html4/ >>> >>> >> >> Dave Singer >> >> singer@mac.com >> >> > > > -- > Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex > chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com Dave Singer singer@mac.com
Received on Monday, 9 May 2016 19:16:23 UTC