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: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:29:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4A24FF09.2020809@opera.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>


On 6/2/09 11:48 AM, Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
>
> Thanks for the link!
> It is very helpful.
> It seems, however, that the versioning battle is still there.
> The blog you directed me to is still just a blog AFAIK.

Yes, but the blog post is written by an authority on the subject. See 
also the posts by David Orchard, who is also a highly respected 
authority on the matter. There are whole conferences on the subject too, 
if you need academic sources that support the rationale for not using 
versioning.

> So http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ may need an update as in the blog, presumably preceded by some discussion.
>
> As a kind of summary, it is ok for me to have namespace as versioning mechanism.

Right. But not in the manner you were suggesting. Only use namespace 
versioning as a last resort (i.e., the language is soooo "fubar", in the 
classical sense, that a new namespace is needed ).

> Having namespace + version + baseProfile seems redundant.

right.

> Thanks.
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcin
>
> Marcin Hanclik
> ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
> Tel: +49-208-8290-6452  |  Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
> Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
> E-Mail: marcin.hanclik@access-company.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marcosscaceres@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 12:18 PM
> To: Marcin Hanclik; public-webapps@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, versioning
>
> 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
>
> ________________________________________
>
> Access Systems Germany GmbH
> Essener Strasse 5  |  D-46047 Oberhausen
> HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda
>
> www.access-company.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
> individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited.
> If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:31:29 GMT

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