- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 07:37:46 -0800
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > 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 it has been superseded; since it has not been superseded, that would be an 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 necessarily out of date, and it has not been replaced by something new The actual language we're using can be seen at Florian's link <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-content/> and several other old specs that haven't been worked on in years. It could be using another term than "obsolete", like "probably useless", but the WG already agreed on this language. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 15:38:36 UTC