- From: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 21:56:20 +0100
- To: "David Singer" <singer@mac.com>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org
On Mon, 09 May 2016 17:11:18 +0100, David Singer <singer@mac.com> wrote: > >> 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 ;-( I agree... >> 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’? I don't think we are causing confusion. The fact that a spec published by W3C is a specific thing that makes another obsolete doesn't conflict with the fact that a given spec may be obsolete. We're working on a process that allows us to point out something is obsolete without having to provide a specific replacement - effectively enabling us to reflect reality better without a pile of unnecessary administrative hurdles. So the term "obsolete" is fine for both cases, even though there are different ways that things come to be called obsolete. cheers >> 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 > -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Monday, 9 May 2016 19:59:23 UTC