Tab, Le 23 janv. 2012 à 22:03, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : > We have repeated evidence that pretending these specs aren't obsolete > and useless hurts web implementors and authors. We're targeting the > web with our specs, so that's extremely relevant for us, more so than > non-web industries dealing with personal regulatory issues. I personally agree that developers need to be directed to the latest spec. Some warning should be there. But a person outside the W3C should not be expected to be taken to some draft document for its implementation. The word obsolete about a spec that has no REC-status replacement really gives outsiders the impression that "the whole thing is obsolete" (there would be no recommendation of the W3C for my purpose? I thought they did). Another formulation needs to be found, even something such as "about to be obsoleted". > Ignoring the regulatory issues for a moment, the non-web industries > harm themselves (or rather, the down-level authors writing content for > the things those industries are producing) by attempting to use these > obsolete specs as well, since they'll be producing things that don't > match the public web. To my personal taste this feels in line with the craze of running after the latest update all the times. The way Chrome does it without warning you and Firefox screams to update to a new version every other month has the reasons to destabilize people! How can I be sure that my neighbours' website is going to play tomorrow? (he doesn't follow the latest trends yet, he'll learn) A good example of such craze is the Flash player: no RECs here, just one proprietary implementation. Flash upgrades have killed old deployments! Adobe or MacroMedia can't be blamed... no promise was made, no standard was declared to be followed (at least recently). paul
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 21:27:15 UTC