Re: random thoughts on DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i think this online definition matches what i have in mind:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-10,GGGL:en&defl=en&q=define:Deprecated&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
>
> "Definitions of Deprecated on the Web: [...] This term is used to refer
> to /obsolete/ structures that should not be used for new applications".
>
> Emphasis is mine.
> I can agree with this and the other definitions at this search result.

you're conflating those two again.  here's my last attempt -- see the
definitions here:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html

and note the fundamental distinction:

deprecated:  "... User agents should continue to support deprecated
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
elements for reasons of backward compatibility..."

obsolete:  "... no guarantee of support by a user agent."
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  that's it -- there's the fundamental difference.  i really don't
care if you can find other wordings that you can interpret
differently.  in *my* proposal, those two definitions are not
orthogonal, they are mutually exclusive.  period.  end of discussion.
if you can't accept that, feel free to submit your own proposal.

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================