From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754979AbXD2Ge7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:34:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754983AbXD2Ge7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:34:59 -0400 Received: from nic.NetDirect.CA ([216.16.235.2]:37471 "EHLO rubicon.netdirect.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754979AbXD2Geo (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:34:44 -0400 X-Originating-Ip: 74.109.98.66 Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:34:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost.localdomain To: Stefan Richter cc: Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: random thoughts on DEPRECATED and OBSOLETE In-Reply-To: <4633E55B.1080601@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Message-ID: References: <46337BD2.7000701@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <4633ACE4.50004@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <4633CA7F.6010505@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <4633E55B.1080601@s5r6.in-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-36.8, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -15.00, INIT_RECVD_OUR_AUTH -20.00) X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-From: rpjday@mindspring.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 ========================================================================