W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

RE: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:19:08 -0800
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118C8659597@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
> I have never heard any browser vendor talk about any of these modes in a 
> positive light, only ever as a necessary evil, and often with regret. 
> Adding mode modes should be on our list of things to avoid wherever 
> possible.

I'm not arguing for adding more modes. I'm discussing whether there
is to be a standard way of indicating which mode is intended or
desired.  I agree that in some circumstances, allowing someone to
say something about the mode intended can have unintended side
effects which also have to be mitigated, but the possibility of
those side effects isn't sufficient justification for avoiding
having a standard method.

> Then my original e-mail on this thread is relevant in that it shows that 
> we only have two possible axes for versioning, namely the namespace and 
> the tag name for whatever elements we want to version.

Well, no, those aren't the only two *possible* axes, those are the
two that you may prefer. DOCTYPE, version attributes and other
mechanisms are also *possible* axes, and no version mechanism
by itself may be sufficient.

> Versioning in general is bad idea IMHO, as discussed almost two years ago:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Jun/0024.html 

Version designations inside web document formats when there are multiple
versions is a fundamental distributed network design, certainly over
30 years old. The earliest discussion I can readily find related to the
web is only 16 years old, though. See:

http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/archives/WWW-TALK/www-talk-1992.messages/216.html

The principles of versioning discussed then have been
underlying all MIME registrations and format discussions
in the intervening years.

Larry
-- 
http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2009 01:19:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC