[tei-council] respond by 1 May: summary of and path forward for "no longer recommended" and "deprecated" practices

[Gabriel Bodard]

On 21/04/2013 12:54, Rebecca Welzenbach wrote:
> In order to help keep the distinction between "no longer recommended"
> and "deprecated" clear, I would prefer keep the listing of a feature
> for discussion of removal in P6 totally separate from the question of
> making it "no longer recommended." I realize that's a bit of a
> fiction: of course whatever is causing it to be no longer recommended
> is probably also what makes it ripe for removal in P6. But since we
> know how hard it is to tease out the details of deprecation,
> disrecommendation, etc., I think there's value in having clear lines
> in the policy.
>
> In other words, if the feature is a candidate for more proactive
> discussion at a post P5 level, by all means, add it to the p6-dev wiki
> page. But I'd rather this be a parallel activity than part of the "no
> longer recommended" policy.
>
> Becky

Yes, I think I agree with this. It may be safest not to mention this at 
all in the "no longer recommended" policy document (which is already a 
separate text from the "deprecation" discussion, right?) or if not, to 
make it clear that the inclusion of something on the p6-dev page is 
completely unrelated to either disrecommendation or deprecation, but is 
rather (as James has just said) something we have decided *not* to 
change at this point but think we may want to revisit when we're being 
all disruptive and non-backward-compatible anyway some day.

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/