W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: {Spam?} Re: [xhr]

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 19:49:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CADnb78gBSAC9Zmzg+gPkvrASBiUxYdy93LQhQokzJmZ4dD=7pw@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 17:49:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:26 UTC