W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

Re: [css-tv] CSS TV profile Obsolete?

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:31:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dC-TpFwNKzCHKbabBq_mHmPAFB2mB8_tBEdj+ScPidtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
in general i agree with this, however I would object to any use of the term
"obsolete", which, at least in my reading in terms of specifications, means
it has been superseded; since it has not been superseded, that would be an
incorrect characterization; that is, it is (or may) still be used, it is
not necessarily out of date, and it has not been replaced by something new

obsolete |ˌäbsəˈlēt|adjective1 no longer produced or used; out of date : the
disposal of old and obsolete machinery | the phrase was obsolete after
1625. See note at old .verb [ trans. ]cause (a product or idea) to be or
become obsolete by replacing it with something new : we're trying to
stimulate the business by obsoleting last year's designs.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:52:03 +0100, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>  I'm not sure that declaring it obsolete is the correct path. In order to
>> declare something obsolete, it is necessary to define what replaces it.
>> None of the current CSS specs replace it (as a profile). It would be more
>> accurate to describe it as "no longer being developed for the purpose of
>> transition to REC".
> I meant an obsoletion notice like the one attached to this document:
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-**content/<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-content/>
> We've done this recently to a bunch of unfinished specs that had been
> inactive
> for too long.
> The only thing it says is that we are not actively working on this, and
> haven't
> been working on it for so long that we don't want to promise anything about
> the relevance or correctness of this content.
>  I know of a number of external specifications in the TV space that
>> normatively refer to this CR, so their doing so should not be disturbed.
> Well, normatively referring to something that isn't REC is usually not a
> good
> idea, but of course, there isn't always an alternative, so I don't blame
> however
> did that.
> At the same time, since they are already out of the W3C way of doing
> things, as
> long as we don't take it off-line, or turn it on its head to mean
> different things,
> I am not sure why they would care that in what way the CSS WG flags its
> documents.
> What I am primarily interested is informing people who discover this
> document for
> the first time that reading it, basing new specs on it, or using it as a
> guide for
> implementation is probably not a very good use of their time.
>  - Florian
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 15:32:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:08 UTC