[rfc-i] Alternatives to 'deprecated' in xml2rfc v3
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue May 6 22:13:43 PDT 2014
On 2014/05/07 12:50, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 5/6/2014 9:14 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> A section title along the lines of "Additional vocabulary supported for
>> input" accurately and neutrally describes this set of vocabulary.
> Further thought, if the above language is too neutral, given the group's
> predilection for denigrating the retained vocabulary:
> Legacy vocabulary supported for input
> That makes its purpose for backward compatibility explicit.
I'd definitely prefer the later ('legacy') to the former ('additional'),
because it makes clear that this is old stuff and no longer needed
except for backwards compatibility.
More information about the rfc-interest