- From: G. James Berigan <www-html@war-of-the-worlds.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:47:39 -0600
- To: www-html@w3.org
Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com> wrote: >Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk> wrote: >>Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com> wrote: >>> It isn't. But you can't expect a spec that allows them to look forward >>> to a spec that changes the situation. We don't retroactively edit a >>> spec to say "oh, and these will be deprecated in that spec 2 iterations >>> forward". No, we instead label them as deprecated which means they'll be removed from the specification later, or even remove them from a companion specification that excludes all that is deprecated. >> The argument was that they were already disallowed by >> the strict version of HTML 4. Other things that are >> disallowed by the strict version are marked deprecated >> in the narrative of that spec. > Frames were never *in* the HTML 4 strict set, so they can't be deprecated > there. Ann, _nothing_ deprecated is in the _strict_ set, including frames and their support tag noframes and attribute target, because they _are_ deprecated. Frames are implicitly deprecated by their absence, yet this is not as obvious as it could be. They should be explicitly stated as deprecated and not treated as a secret so that they know what to avoid using.
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2000 12:47:35 UTC