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, 16 Jun 2009 12:50:08 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670906160350p4fa93fc5xca2e83bd4870c8ae@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Marcin,
For the sake of the disposition of comments, can you please
acknowledge that you are satisfied with the responses of the working
group in this email thread. A response from you is required for us to
progress the document to CR.  If we don't receive a response by the
21st of June, we will assume you have accepted the comments and no
further action is needed. If further action or clarification is needed
on your part, then please let us know ASAP.

Kind regards,
Marcos

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Marcos Caceres<marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/2/09 11:39 AM, Marcin Hanclik wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marcos,
>>
>>>> What version of the configuration document format is
>>>> denoted by the namespace.
>>
>> So there is versioning, but it is based on namespace and not on version
>> attribute.
>> This is just syntactical issue.
>
> It's more of a conceptual issue with _real_ technical implications.
>
>>>> I have no idea what SML is.
>>
>> I have also little idea about it, but it is one of W3C specs, similarly to
>> P&C and it was released not so long time ago.
>> My comments are trying to give more general perspective for W3C specs.
>> So this comment is more addressed to TAG, I think.
>>
>>>>> The usage of the "version" attribute in P&C seems to be the first usage
>>>>> of this attribute for document version and
>>>>
>>>> not for specification format versioning.
>>
>>>> exactly.
>>
>> So why are you doing that?
>
> the intent of "version" in P&C is so developers can identify releases,
> mostly for marketing/promotion reasons ("I fixed a bug so I'm gonna re-ship
> my app with 2.0 so people think it's heaps better!").
>
>> I think consistency is a good principle - also among not much related
>> specs, but all coming from W3C - and could be followed.
>
> <rant>
> No, we won't just blindly follow what other people/w3c do (as this thread
> has already pointed out, there have been many many blunders with regards to
> versioning and technologies in general at the W3C, to the point where the
> TAG findings need revision). To quote from ISO, "Standards should be based
> on the consolidated results of science, technology and experience, and aimed
> at the promotion of optimum community benefit”[1]. To get good results, we
> must assume that everything is wrong and everything must be scrutinized and
> evaluated. Nothing can be taken blindly and on faith - if we have learned
> anything from Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C, is that we should inquire in and
> upon everything.
> </rant>
>
> [1] Vries, H. J. (2006). IT Standard Topology. In K. Jakobs (Ed.), Advanced
> Topics In Technology Standards and
> Standardization Research (Vol. I). Pennsylvania: Idea-Group.
>
>



-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 10:51:15 GMT

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