- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:50:34 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:26:34 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:58:03 +0100, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>> That's the choice, I think. I prefer #1. >> The reason I prefer #2 is that we have had reason to obsolete features >> over time. Given that it makes sense that conformance also evolves over >> time as we learn more about the medium. > > But we're not obsoleting, we're removing. Removing is what I understand obsoleting to be. (Though I believe all old features are still mentioned.) > If HTML5 only removed things that were already deprecated in HTML4 we'd > probably have a different discussion. If we developed HTML5 at the pace of HTML32, HTML4, etc. that might be reasonable, but I don't think that is necessary now. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 13:51:26 UTC