docelic at mail.inet.hr
Sun Feb 25 08:44:20 EST 2007
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 04:25:56 -0800
Peter <peter at pajamian.dhs.org> wrote:
> On 02/25/2007 05:15 AM, Davor Ocelic wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 03:09:14 -0800
> > Peter <peter at pajamian.dhs.org> wrote:
> >> In the Standard Syntax section of
> >> <http://icdevgroup.org/xmldocs/glossary/ITL.html> there is a "note" that
> >> references that [/page] is a macro. This is a really bad example
> >> considering that [/page] is now obsolete.
> > There is also a "note", immediately after, that </a> is preferred,
> > so I don't see a problem.
> Last time I checked "preferred" was not the same as "required". IMO it
> should either not be mentioned at all or a note stating it is OBSOLETE
> should be put there. It really is bad form, IMO to use an example that
> is obsolete.
I was under the impression that, even though we discussed it,
[/page] and [/order] were not removed from the source.
I see now that they were, so I'll update the docs. Thanks for the report.
For extra points, you could submit a small diff to fix it yourself.
Also, consider writing more accurate reports in the future;
"obsolete" means that something is no longer in use (for different reasons),
not that it cannot be used any more even if the users wanted it.
Besides, even leaving nit-picking semantics aside, we have a number of stuff
in Interchange that we call 'obsolete', which simply means it should not
be used, not that it cannot be used.
> This is a really bad example
> considering that [/page] is now obsolete.
could have been simply phrased more correctly and calmly as
This is a bad example
considering that [/page] has been removed.
Also, capitalizing the word "obsolete" in your second reply
was completely unnecessary.
More information about the docs