[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] [RS Issue] Need clarification on comment on line 1410
My argument was that maybe we didn't want to deprecate references to deprecated content...so I don't see how this connects. -- Matthew MacKenzie <mattm@adobe.com> Sr. Architect, Adobe Systems http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/ Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend. -- Theophrastus On Jan 25, 2005, at 9:55 AM, David Webber (XML) wrote: > Matt, > > Google and "The-way-back" machine teach us that retaining links > to old deprecated content can be valuable... > > DW > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew MacKenzie" <mattm@adobe.com> > To: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com> > Cc: "Goran Zugic" <gzugic@ebxmlsoft.com>; "Farrukh Najmi" > <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>; <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 10:12 PM > Subject: Re: [regrep] [RS Issue] Need clarification on comment on line > 1410 > > >> Thinking in the abstract, if a target is deprecated is it also fair to >> assume references to it are deprecated? Possibly yes, possibly no. >> >> Imaginary Use case: >> >> User "bob" has been deprecated as part of a reorganization. "bob" has >> been given 3 months to transition his role to someone else ("mary"), >> and >> during that three months he shall continue in his job. If Association >> to process objects define "bob"'s position, should those associations >> be >> deprecated? I don't think so. Why? Because those associations will >> need to be transitioned to "mary". Maybe this needs to be an optional >> flag on the deprecate request. >> >> Duane Nickull wrote: >> >>> Goran: >>> >>> That probably depends on the type of reference. If it is a reference >>> (association) of "supercedes", it probably should not be deprecated. >>> On the other hand, if it is a reference as "includes", that is >>> another >>> matter. >>> >>> I guess this is a wake up call for a good set of user guides ;-) >>> >>> Duane >>> >>> Goran Zugic wrote: >>> >>>> I like Duane's idea as well. However, I also think that in a such >>>> case we should also (automatically) deprecate all objects that >>>> reference the deprecated object. For example, it doesn't make sense >>>> to keep an Association with a "valid" status (approved) that >>>> references a deprecated object. It raises another question related >>>> to >>>> the RS specs. What is the reason that we don't deprecate objects >>>> that reference objects that were deprecated after their creation? >>> >>> >>> <SNIP> >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster >> of > the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/ > leave_workgroup.php. >> >> >> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/ > leave_workgroup.php. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]