Re: <XMP> and <LISTING>, declared content (Was Re: HTML 2.0 LAST CALL: ...)
James Clark (jjc@jclark.com)
Mon, 5 Jun 95 05:54:20 EDT
> Date: Sat, 3 Jun 95 15:39:22 EDT
> From: Joe English <joe@trystero.art.com>
>
> Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org> wrote:
>
> > In message <9506030109.AA16555@trystero.art.com>, Joe English writes:
> > >> > [joe@art.com wrote:]
> > >> > Calling them "deprecated" is not strong enough for me.
> > >> > They were "obsolete" as of May 31, and I *strongly urge* that
> > >> > they stay that way until HTML 2.1, when they should
> > >> > be eliminated altogether.
> >
> > Before this change (moving XMP/LISTING from appendix to normative but
> > deprecated), the DTD was inconsistent with the prose of the spec. So
> > my choices were: change the DTD, or change the prose.
>
> I see your point.
>
> However, I still object to calling them merely "deprecated" --
> that puts XMP and LISTING in the same category as constructs
> like null end-tags and marked sections, whose use is only
> discouraged "at least until such time as support for them is widely
> deployed."
I agree.
> There needs to be a more clear distinction between "stuff you shouldn't
> use because lots of browsers don't get it right *yet*" and
> "stuff you shouldn't use because it'll eventually be taken
> out of the spec" in the prose. I liked the word "obsolete"
> to describe the latter category, and would even be happy
> with "deprecated" IF some other term (maybe "discouraged"?)
> were used to describe constructs in the former category.
If "obsolete" is too strong for people, perhaps "obsolescent" would be
an acceptable compromise: it conveys the idea that although they
haven't yet fallen into disuse, they're destined (we hope) for that.