Re: action item completed: AI20030410-3

One small quibble with this, which I noticed as I was updating the LC 
issues list...

At 08:44 AM 5/23/03 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>AI-20030410-3 Lynne
>Revise use of obsolete example in HTML and draft something to reflect what 
>needs to be done for issue LC-40 (Relationship between obsolete and 
>deprecation).
>
>Completed.  SpecGL changed as follows:
>
>LC-40 Obsolete (vetted by WG)
>Modify 2nd sentence go G7
>Deprecated features should not be used and may be removed in some future 
>version, at which time the feature becomes obsolete.

This wording is okay if we're just looking at LC-40.  But in related LC-33 
we said that we would address the objection about the vagueness of  the 
term, "used."  (Note.  Should also look at related LC-99, and see what we 
promised to do there, to help prevent misunderstandings such as the 
originator's.)

-Lofton.


>Add CP7.6 Identify each obsolete feature [P3]
>Conformance Requirement:  the specification MUST document each obsolete 
>feature.  This checkpoint is not applicable if there are no obsolete features.
>Rationale: Obsolete features are listed for historical purposes.  There is 
>no guarantee of support for obsolete features by implementations of the 
>specification.
>Note for ExTech: obsolete features can be listed in the Change section of 
>the specification (HTML 4.1)
>
>Add definition to Section 4 Terminology.
>Obsolete:  feature that is no longer defined in the specification. A 
>feature is often deprecated before becoming Obsolete.