What does deprecated mean? Are you sure you know the right answer?

R

Richard

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

Deprecated
A deprecated element or attribute is one that has been outdated by newer
constructs. Deprecated elements are defined in the reference manual in
appropriate locations, but are clearly marked as deprecated. Deprecated
elements may become obsolete in future versions of HTML.

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

Definitions of elements and attributes clearly indicate which are
deprecated.

This specification includes examples that illustrate how to avoid using
deprecated elements. In most cases these depend on user agent support for
style sheets. In general, authors should use style sheets to achieve
stylistic and formatting effects rather than HTML presentational attributes.
HTML presentational attributes have been deprecated when style sheet
alternatives exist.
--------------------------------------

As it clearly states here, even though an item has been DEPRECATED, it is
still permissable to use said item due to the fact it is impossible to
change old browsers once they are in the user's hands.

You don't like it? Bitch to W3.org about it. They wrote it.
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

Richard said:
[...] In general, authors should use style sheets to achieve
stylistic and formatting effects rather than HTML presentational
attributes. [...]

--------------------------------------

As it clearly states here, even though an item has been DEPRECATED,
it is still permissable to use said item due to the fact it is
impossible to change old browsers once they are in the user's hands.

Ever considered *actually reading* what you quote? The specification
says exactly what most of the regulars around here say: that unless
there's a very good reason not to, you should use CSS for presentation
instead.
 
R

rf

Richard said:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html#deprecated

User agents should continue to support deprecated elements for reasons
of backward compatibility.
As it clearly states here, even though an item has been DEPRECATED, it is
still permissable to use said item due to the fact it is impossible to
change old browsers once they are in the user's hands.

Nothing of the sort. They mean backward compatibility for *web pages* not
browsers.

It would be a supremely stupid browser author who suddenly dropped support
for deprecated elements and caused hundreds of millions of web pages to
fail.

And it is not "permissable" to use deprecated items in modern designs. That
is why the strict DTD does not validate them. It *is* "permissable" to
continue their use in legacy pages that were written last century, that is
why there is a transitional DTD.

As usual you have it totally arse about :)
 
T

Toby Inkster

Richard said:
As it clearly states here, even though an item has been DEPRECATED, it is
still permissable to use said item due to the fact it is impossible to
change old browsers once they are in the user's hands.

It also says that:

| Deprecated elements may become obsolete in future versions of HTML.

And:

| User agents should continue to support deprecated elements for reasons
| of backward compatibility.

However, note is DOES NOT say:

| User agents should continue to support obsolete elements for reasons
| of backward compatibility.

That is, deprecated things may eventually become obsolete. And once
they're obsolete, user agents are allowed to drop support for them.

Or, to make it even plainer: deprecated things might not be supported in
the future. So if you want to future-proof your site, steer clear of
deprecated elements.

Further, there is always a *reason* elements are depreated. Usually
because they are totally useless and can be replaced with a single CSS
property.
 
D

Duende

While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:
It would be a supremely stupid browser author who suddenly dropped support
for deprecated elements and caused hundreds of millions of web pages to
fail.

Never know what microsoft has up their sleeve.

--
 
A

Andy Dingley

As it clearly states here, even though an item has been DEPRECATED, it is
still permissable to use said item

It's not about whether the attribute is deprecated or not, it's the
fact that you gave it a value that's just plain _wrong_.
 
J

JDS

It would be a supremely stupid browser author who suddenly dropped support
for deprecated elements and caused hundreds of millions of web pages to
fail.

Well, IIRC, that is exactly what the Mozilla foundation did, back in
2000 or 2001, when they dropped support for document.layers and other NS4
thingamahoobers. But it was a bold move, and now, some 4+ years later,
arguably a good move.
 
R

rf

JDS said:
Well, IIRC, that is exactly what the Mozilla foundation did, back in
2000 or 2001, when they dropped support for document.layers and other NS4
thingamahoobers. But it was a bold move, and now, some 4+ years later,
arguably a good move.

No, that is not exactly what Mozilla did.

<layer> and all the other NS4 stuff was not deprecated, or even obsolote,
because it was never part of the spec in the first place.

What Mozilla did was drop support for some proprietry inventions specific to
a particular browser.
 
J

JDS

<layer> and all the other NS4 stuff was not deprecated, or even obsolote,
because it was never part of the spec in the first place.

What Mozilla did was drop support for some proprietry inventions specific to
a particular browser.

Right, I see the technical distinction. However, it could be argued that
by the very fact of Netscape (or MSIE's) market share that NS4's
implementation *was* the specification. At least in a de facto sort of way.

I mean, the end result was that Moz killed support for features being
*used* by a ton of websites, which ofttimes had to be rewritten (and there
are still, 4+years later, a lot of broken sites and *especially* a
lot of broken code *examplese* and *tutorials* around because of it[1]).


[1] In 1998, didn't it seem like everyone who figured out how to do a JS
rollover suddenly had a Web Techniques and Tutorials site? Maybe that is
still true to some extent... hmmm...
 
R

rf

JDS said:
I mean, the end result was that Moz killed support for features being
*used* by a ton of websites, which ofttimes had to be rewritten

The fact that a website once used a feature does not mean that it still
should. The same thing could be said about IEs marquee element. Lots of
sites used it when IE was number 1. Now there is a plethora of javascript
rubbish to replace it for modern browsers.

Hmmm. If a web site is 4+ years old then perhaps it needs re-visiting anyway
:)

If a web site does not support modern browsers and/or the recommendations
then it *should* be re-visited, unless it is being kept there for historical
purposes. Do you still use a TV set that utilises valves? No, because you
can't buy replacements any more. Similarly you should not use <layer>
because you can't buy^H^H^H obtain a browser that supports it anymore,
except for historical reasons.

Hmmm again. It was once kosher to smoke cigarettes in a public place. On a
bus even. The rules have changed.
[1] In 1998, didn't it seem like everyone who figured out how to do a JS
rollover suddenly had a Web Techniques and Tutorials site? Maybe that is
still true to some extent... hmmm...

And *all* of them used the obsolete cargo cult nonsense of putting HTML
comments around the javascript (to hide it from pre release 3 browsers), a
practice which continues here and over at clj still today.

It's even crept into the style element, putting HTML elements around the
CSS. Browsers that do not support or at least don't ignore the style element
(and thus wont render its content) *are* obsolete[1], just as visicalc and
msdos is.

In any case javascript rollovers are obsolete. CSS does it now, and much
better, except for a certain browser that itself should be obsolete :)

[1] This is entirely different to using cdata inside a style element in an
XHTML document.
 
G

ghoulxr

Richard said:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html#deprecated

Deprecated
A deprecated element or attribute is one that has been outdated by
newer
constructs. Deprecated elements are defined in the reference manual in
appropriate locations, but are clearly marked as deprecated. Deprecated
elements may become obsolete in future versions of HTML.

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

Definitions of elements and attributes clearly indicate which are
deprecated.

This specification includes examples that illustrate how to avoid
using
deprecated elements. In most cases these depend on user agent support for
style sheets. In general, authors should use style sheets to achieve
stylistic and formatting effects rather than HTML presentational
attributes. HTML presentational attributes have been deprecated when style
sheet alternatives exist.
--------------------------------------

As it clearly states here, even though an item has been DEPRECATED, it is
still permissable to use said item due to the fact it is impossible to
change old browsers once they are in the user's hands.

You don't like it? Bitch to W3.org about it. They wrote it.

RICHARD IS A PEDO SCUMBAG!
 
J

JDS

The fact that a website once used a feature does not mean that it still
should. The same thing could be said about IEs marquee element. Lots of
sites used it when IE was number 1. Now there is a plethora of javascript
rubbish to replace it for modern browsers.


WAS number 1?? MSIE is no longer number 1??? That is news to me!

If a web site does not support modern browsers and/or the recommendations
then it *should* be re-visited, unless it is being kept there for historical
purposes. Do you still use a TV set that utilises valves? No, because you
can't buy replacements any more. Similarly you should not use <layer>
because you can't buy^H^H^H obtain a browser that supports it anymore,
except for historical reasons.


Hmm. Your analogies could use some tweaking. For example, tubes[1] may not
be in my TV but nearly every TV in the US still uses essentially the same
TV technology from 50 years ago.

Allright, later.



[1] TUBES, dammit. I'm USA-ian. Valves are for Marshall and Vox amps
(which are at least British). And you *can* buy replacements, BTW. There
is actually a big market for tubes still in guitar amps and audiophile
stereo components.
 
R

rf

WAS number 1?? MSIE is no longer number 1??? That is news to me!

Number 1 in the sense of the best around.

IE took that position away from Netscape last century. Since then (and
remember that IE was released last century) there have been a number of
browsers released that far exceed the capabilities of IE.

The fact that IE is the most used browser does not make it the number 1
browser.

[TV]
Hmm. Your analogies could use some tweaking. For example, tubes[1] may not
be in my TV but nearly every TV in the US still uses essentially the same
TV technology from 50 years ago.

What? You don't have cable over there? Or high definition digital? Or DVD's?
Or surround sound? Or picture in picture? Or, for that matter, colour?

None of these things are supported by a 50 year old TV :)
 
N

nice.guy.nige

While the city slept, rf ([email protected]) feverishly typed...
Hmmm again. It was once kosher to smoke cigarettes in a public place.
On a bus even. The rules have changed.

I remember when you could smoke on buses. It never ceases to amaze me that
on single-decker buses, you could only smoke at the back. Which way is the
smoke blown?? ;-)

[javascript]
And *all* of them used the obsolete cargo cult nonsense of putting
HTML comments around the javascript (to hide it from pre release 3
browsers), a practice which continues here and over at clj still
today.

I still use comments around my javascript (although I rarely write js these
days) just out of nostalgia I think. Mainly because of my "trademark"
comments of <!-- hide at the top and // dunhidin --> at the bottom. I
recently found some scripts I had written and forgotten about years ago
(done on an old PC from which all my old code was zipped and archived) by
googling the clj archive for "// dunhidin -->" so it could be argued to have
some benefit, as long as you use distinctive comments! ;-)

Cheers,
Nige
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,734
Messages
2,569,441
Members
44,832
Latest member
GlennSmall

Latest Threads

Top