On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> >> ... >> Defining versioning syntax now seems premature if the current de facto >> processing model is to ignore the versioning syntax (correct?) and the de >> facto authoring practice is not to emit the versioning syntax. If all goes >> well, versioning syntax is never needed. >> >> If things go wrong and in the future there is a need to signal versioning, >> that bridge can be crossed then and versioning syntax added. > > How is this supposed to work if versioning isn't being considered upfront? > > As far as I can tell, if versioning isn't there from version 1, there's no > way to may incompatible changes (which may be good, but that's an orthogonal > question). If you want to do *versioning* then yes doing that up front seems like a good idea yes. However the version *identifier* seems like something you can wait with until version 2. Simply let the absence of a version identifier identify that version 1 is used. If Philip Taylor's numbers are representative, then it seems like in practice it's already the case that the lack of version identifier is used to indicate that version 1. / JonasReceived on Monday, 28 September 2009 19:04:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:49 GMT