- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:10:40 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1088583040.1498.208.camel@stratustier>
Hello Karl, Glad to see we can't stop you :) Way to go! Le mar 29/06/2004 à 20:57, Karl Dubost a écrit : > 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. s/present/current/ (or new) s/technology/specification/ > It is necessary to give a list of obsolete features. s/necessary/really useful/ ? > Care: > It gives a clear message to users and developers that obsolete > features are forbidden and not part of the technology anymore. s/technology/specification/ > It will > help to avoid the creation of documents mixing old and new techniques > which will be invalid. s/will help to/helps/ I guess documents are only one example of possible misuse of obsolete features, so I guess a "for instance" would be appropriate. Also, I would avoid to use the term "invalid", since that's not defined; let's talk about non-conformant. > It helps to avoid name clashing. s/helps to/helps/ > When an extension to a technology is > created, developers will use nouns for their extended features name. Hmm... I guess you're thinking to a specific case, but I don't think you can claim generally that extensions developers use nouns to name the new features. > Giving the name of obsolete features will help developers to avoid > using the names of previous features which are now obsolete. Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2004 04:11:39 UTC