- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 08:54:33 -0700
- To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+esNqFfuYDm+WH-37NtyHmd7FfBNXttW-x50ZkrtP=oZQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:31:09 +0100, 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 it has been superseded; since it has not been superseded, that would be an 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 not necessarily out of date, and it has not been replaced by something new >> > > To me, that would be "deprecated". Obsolete rather means "old to the > point of not being (very) useful". > > I don't think we can make a judgment on its retained utility unless we survey the industry. The essential comment to add is that it is no longer being developed by the CSS WG. Labeling it as obsolete calls for a judgment call that is beyond this scope, and should be avoided. Furthermore, the group should avoid labeling any feature as obsolete or deprecated unless a replacement feature and reference is made explicit.
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 15:55:23 UTC