On 3/6/12 3:06 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 3/6/12 2:53 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> >>> I also think that technically, this XEP should be "deprecated" rather >>> than "obsoleted" - it is out of date, rather than wrong. >> >> Changing the status of a XEP to Obsolete does mean the protocol is >> wrong, it means that you shouldn't implement the spec. > > There's a "not" missing here.
There is, thanks for the correction. > I had the same concern about "deprecated" vs "obsoleted", so I checked > XEP-0001 and decided obsoleted was fine (although I grant we skipped > the deprecated step that we should have taken if we were being > precise). Ideally, we would have deprecated them the moment the RFCs were published. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
