XMP and LISTING are obsolete elements, present in the DTD for
backwards compatibility only. User agents should support these legacy
elements, but should not encourage their use. Thus HTML editors should be
able to process legacy documents containing XMP or LISTING elements, but
should not support the insertion of new XMP or LISTING elements. Document
authors are reminded that new HTML documents should never contain elements
marked as obsolete.
(perhaps obsolete --> obsolescent. )
Ian
-- Ian Graham .................................... igraham@utirc.utoronto.ca > James Clark <jjc@jclark.com> wrote: > > > 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.