W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2005

Re: Versioning the Tool class

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 04:17:35 +0200
To: shadi@w3.org
Cc: "public-wai-ert@w3.org" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ssfxzljjwxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:33:48 +0200, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Charles,
>
> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> I think we should use a new URI for this Class - I suggest that we  
>> simply  change the suffix to ToolG so that they are not the same thing,  
>> and  maintain the namespace. That saves building versioning tools that  
>> have to  convert everything from one namespace to another, which  
>> strikes me as  beneficial - let's not make extra work for increasing  
>> compatibility and  convergence while we don't have to.
>
> This revision is in many ways a major change to the Schema. W3C Working  
> Drafts are clearly marked as work in progress for exactly this reason,  
> that we do not lock ourselves into old and outdated concepts. I really  
> suggest we use a new namespace to mark this new version of EARL rather  
> than try to restrict ourselves. What are your exact concerns beyond  
> conversion between different versions?

There are several people implementing test drafts. If the versions are  
going to change terms that actually change the meaning then there is no  
real problem. Changing terms which have no good reason to change, just for  
the sake of noting that a new document was published will ensure that at  
least one implementation attempting to track current specs will simply  
stop doing so, and I am concerned that others will also stop trying to  
maintain compatibility with the latest draft. As it is I would be  
surprised if many implementations are committed to following each draft,  
including the CR draft.

As one of the few people who has written version conversions, I am also  
not interested in maintaining conversions across chages in terms where  
there is no change in meaning - it is simply too much work.

So the concern is that we make life difficult for the people who are  
prepared to follow drafts and ensure that there will be interoperable  
implementations whenever a draft comes out. This strikes me as needlessly  
burning off the goodwill we need to have implementation as we go, instead  
of waiting for people to do it sometime after we release a candidate  
recommendation, and then discover problems arising.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                              chaals@opera.com
          hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
   Here's one we prepared earlier:   http://www.opera.com/download
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 02:17:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:26 GMT