(Branden, your mails keep getting "{Spam?}" put in the header, which means every time you post, you create a new thread for Gmail users. I guess it's the list software to blame for changing subject lines, but it's making a mess of this thread...)
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote: > See > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2014JanMar/thread.html#msg232 > for why we added a warning to the specification. It was thought that > if we made a collective effort we can steer people away from depending > on this. And I think from that perspective gradually phasing it out > from the specification makes sense. With some other features we take > the opposite approach, we never really defined them and are awaiting > implementation experience to see whether they can be killed or need to > be added (mutation events). I think it's fine to have several > strategies for removing features. Hopefully over time we learn what is > effective and what is not. > It's perfectly valid to warn people when they shouldn't use a feature. Sync XHR is such a strong case of this that a spec would be deeply neglegent not to have a warning. My only issue is the wording: it doesn't make sense to have normative language saying "you must not use this feature". This should be a non-normative note warning that this shouldn't be used, not a normative requirement telling people that they must not use it. (This is a more general problem--the use of normative language to describe authoring conformance criteria is generally confusing.) -- Glenn Maynard