“Deprecate” is a verb, and so I think there would indeed need to be someone doing the deprecating for it to properly work.
The context for this is that we still get plenty of people confused that the stuff at https://tiddlytools.com/ <https://tiddlytools.com/> doesn’t work with TW5. Cases like http://tw5magick.tiddlyspot.com <http://tw5magick.tiddlyspot.com/> are pretty egregious: it’s 7 years old, based on TW5 when it was in beta. So, I think we need a really clear “danger” sign for ordinary users to make things super clear. The most important meaning that we’re trying to put across is “Don’t try to use this unless you know what you’re doing”. On balance, I still favour “obsolete” as carrying the right combination of meanings: “don’t use me because I’m old”. Best wishes Jeremy. > On 25 Mar 2021, at 14:45, Soren Bjornstad <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is it reasonable to call something deprecated if it hasn't been announced as > such by the author? That's the best term I can think of, though it is a > little bit on the technical side. > > My concerns with the other suggestions: > "Obsolete" sounds like it is no longer necessary, it has been superseded, > which isn't necessarily true > "Antiquated" seems oddly formal (plus it would seem to have the same negative > feeling of "old", to whatever extent that's a problem). > "Vintage", as Jeremy said, has a positive connotation that doesn't seem right. > "Disused" is closer, but seems like it conveys something about how many > people actually use it (which we don't in fact know), rather than whether you > should use it. > Deprecated means it shouldn't be used if you can find another solution, and > it's about whether people think you should use it, not about its raw age or > how many people actually do use it. The only issue I'm thinking of right now > is that it might suggest that it still works, which isn't necessarily the > case. > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 8:49:28 AM UTC-5 Mark S. wrote: > They all work in situ. And they all might be the basis of something rebooted. > They just might not be the first choice for immediate use in a modern TW. So, > how to gently convey that subtlety? > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 2:44:18 AM UTC-7 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > [email protected] <> wrote: > "Vintage" sounds desirable nowadays! We need to communicate that this stuff > is no longer usable, so maybe "Obsolete"? The description can explain why > it's still worth including. > > TBH, I'm getting CONFUSED! :-) > > Obsolete / Vintage / Oldish. REALLY? > > GIVE me aggregation of WHAT WORKS out-of-the-box WITHOUT ageism. > That is enough already! > > TT > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TiddlyWiki" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/6f9a8c78-df32-4621-a99e-44be1cfdfb93n%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/6f9a8c78-df32-4621-a99e-44be1cfdfb93n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/1D21945B-46B5-4B0E-91C8-90117F927798%40gmail.com.
