W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, versioning

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 12:17:32 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670906010317w4e74471uc4c7c6dc34605a71@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> Marcin Hanclik:
>> > I have reviewed a few recommendations from http://www.w3.org/TR/.
>> > a) SVGT1.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/ says:
>> > "Future versions of this specification will maintain backwards
>> > compatibility with previous versions of the language" SVGT1.2 uses
>> > version attribute to describe the version of the standard that
>> > was used to write the SVG document. They also use "baseProfile"
>> > as a further means for content versioning/requirements in
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/single-page.html#implnote-VersionControl.
>
> Just to be clear, version="" and baseProfile="" in SVG Tiny 1.2 are used
> only as a hint from the content author as to what minimum version of the
> language is required for the content to work properly.  No difference
> in processing is required for differently specified version="" and
> baseProfile="" attributes.
>

See also the link below for a detailed discussion as to why you are
suggesting in not ideal:
http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/12/version_identifiers_reconsider.html

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 10:18:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT