[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [conformance] Minutes of 15 Feb 2002, Telconference
- [...]
- Has anyone yet recorded a definition, exactly what we mean by "deprecated feature". Is it still legal but discouraged? Does it pertain only to MUST features? Or also to SHOULD features and MAY features? (Can you deprecate a MUST NOT assertion?)
- [Lynne Rosenthal] No. this wasn't specifically discussed. However, a definition is needed and will be provided. the pertinence to MUST, SHOULD, MAY is a conformance impliciation and not necessarily part of the definition.
- [...]
- I think it would be useful to make a precise definition of "backward compatibility", particularly if it is going to be used in an issue statement. Having missed the teleconference, I'm not sure what is being discussed. Here are a couple of possibilities that come to mind:
- [Lynne Rosenthal] Again, agree. A definition of what is meant by backward compatiability would be good. I'm not sure how precise it will be considering there may be different flavors depending on the type of specification.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC