- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 19:47:37 -0400
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
More comments.... >D.4 Deprecation > >Previous: >--------------------------------------------- >Good Practice: > Identify obsolete features >--------------------------------------------- > >Proposal: >--------------------------------------------- >Good Practice: > Identify obsolete features > >Meaning: > A feature which has been deprecated in a previous version was at > risk. You might consider to make it obsolete in your present version of > the technology. It is necessary to give a list of obsolete features. A feature which has been deprecated in a previous version of the specification was at risk of being removed. Making it obsolete indicates that the feature is no longer in use and removed from this present version of the technology. Providing a list of obsolete features informs developers and users what is no longer in the specification. >Care: > It gives a clear message to users and developers that obsolete > features are forbidden and not part of the technology anymore. It will > help to avoid the creation of documents mixing old and new techniques > which will be invalid. > It helps to avoid name clashing. When an extension to a > technology is created, developers will use nouns for their extended > features name. Giving the name of obsolete features will help developers > to avoid using the names of previous features which are now obsolete. > > >Related: > References to the Extension section > > >Technique: > 1. Create a list of all features that are obsolete. > 2. Create a dedicated section for it > 3. Create a entry in the table of content going to this list > 4. For each deprecated feature, create a link to the appropriate > definition in the previous specification. > >Examples: > > HTML 4.01, Appendix A: Changes lists the elements that are > obsolete and suggests an alternative element for use. "The following > elements are obsolete: LISTING, PLAINTEXT, and XMP. For all of them, > authors should use the PRE element instead." >--------------------------------------------- -regards Lynne
Received on Saturday, 3 July 2004 19:48:18 UTC