- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:49:30 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Brendan Eich <brendan@secure.meer.net>, Charles McCathienevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Robert Hanson <hansonr@stolaf.edu>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > Hear hear. Indeed, a large part of moving to a "living standard" model is > all about maintaining the agility to respond to changes to avoid having to > make this very kind of assertion. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JanMar/thread.html#msg232 for why we added a warning to the specification. It was thought that if we made a collective effort we can steer people away from depending on this. And I think from that perspective gradually phasing it out from the specification makes sense. With some other features we take the opposite approach, we never really defined them and are awaiting implementation experience to see whether they can be killed or need to be added (mutation events). I think it's fine to have several strategies for removing features. Hopefully over time we learn what is effective and what is not. Deprecation warnings have worked for browsers. They might well work better if specifications were aligned with them. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 17:49:58 UTC