A suggestion (which is a pain I realize) would be that if "deprecated" doesn't really mean "deprecated", that we change the term to describe what it does mean (like "alias" or something) Also in my view the existing deprecated values that are quite odd (i-klingon), should be deprecated in the true "deprecated" sense, not in the "alias" sense. - Shawn -----Original Message----- From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 6:12 PM To: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] A radical proposal (was: Re: extlang & deprecation) Shawn Steele <Shawn dot Steele at microsoft dot com> wrote: > Re: Deprecated. > > I happen to work for a large company that regularly gets "beat up" in > the media for not using the preferred forms of standards. Those doing > the ranting usually don't care if there is a "good reason" or not for > using the non-preferred form. They also aren't going to bother with > minor details like reading the definition of a well-known term like > "deprecated". This is the point I was trying to make about our terminology, but maybe Shawn's real-world perspective will help lend it some more serious consideration. -- Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.