Standard or convention for the "denigrated" marker?

Question

Hello,
Is there a standard (JLS, Javadoc specs,...), or convention (Java tutorial, Javadoc manual,...) that specifies the meaning of the term "denigrated" as used to document a part of a Java API?
While looking for something in the java.security.cert package, I stumbled on [this method|http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/security/cert/X509Certificate.html#getSubjectDN%28%29] , whose Javadoc contains this intriguing comment:
public abstract Principal getSubjectDN()
Denigrated, replaced by [getSubjectX500Principal()|http://java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/security/cert/X509Certificate.html#getSubjectX500Principal()] . This method returns the...
It's the first time I've met the term Denigrated in the API Javadoc. To make things clear, it's denigrated, not deprecated, in particular the method's javadoc has no @deprecated tag nor @Deprecated annotation, and the compiler doesn't flinch when compiling a call to this method.
A quick search session turned out:
- an oldish topic " [Difference between "deprecated" and "denigrated"|http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?forumID=256&threadID=498651] " in the Java Programming forum archive, which turned slightly off-topic (surprise, surprise) without concluding on whether this is a standard term or not
- one bug entry[5008142|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=5008142] on this very method getSubjectDN(...) and a few companion methods too, requesting that the +@deprecated+ tag be used instead, but the evaluation turns the request down without commenting on what "denigrated" formally means.
- another bug entry [6428760|http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6428760] requested to add a standard annotation @Denigrated to differentiate from @Deprecated cases. The request is turned down as well for simplicity's sake, but both the requester and evaluator seem to agree on a conventional meaning for "denigrated" in the scope of Java API.
So again, my question is, since these people seem to share a common definition of "denigrated", is there an authoritative source that specifies this meaning in this context?
I'm not looking for the definition of the english word, nor for the difference between deprecated and denigrated, which are well highlighted already in the links above.
Also, I haven't found any other occurrence of this wording outside of the java.security.cert package, maybe it was just a specific team's fad...

Answer 1

So again, my question is, since these people seem to share a common definition of "denigrated", is there an authoritative source that specifies this meaning in this context?As you may have seen in reply #2 I found out that there actually is an undergoing proposal to add a formal tag of this flavour; although not completed (and probably not even "decided"), this justifies that at least the vocabulary is shared by various people. Which answers my question (I was afraid I had missed some spec or convention).
Might help to keep in mind that neither the java language nor the Java API follow a very strict way of handling specifications. It is more of a "good enough".I think I see what you mean as far as the API's documentation goes, and for most purposes I find it good enough indeed (in the case at hand I was curious to know about the potential spec, but the doc intent was very clear nonetheless).
On the other hand I don't see what you mean by "the Java language (...) [doesn't] follow a very strict way of handling specification".
J.
P.S.: I suspect my latest remark might lead this thread to a very different direction... :o)