W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [Widgets] Widget Gallery RSS like sharing format

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:57:21 +0100
Cc: Thomas Landspurg <thomas.landspurg@gmail.com>, SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-Id: <C0E19B02-C4CC-46C0-9A0F-06B78DC71ACC@berjon.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
On Mar 17, 2009, at 13:24 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Agreed. Thinking forward, how do you recommend we identify version 2.0
> of the widget configuration file format (or should we just cross that
> bridge when we get to it?) ?

Personally, I would recommend that we don't :) Version identifiers are  
largely useless and experience shows that users use them wrong (e.g. a  
bunch of SVG out there that's labelled as 1.1 is really 1.2, but  
people just copy-paste the root element).

There are strategies to implement versioning of XML vocabularies which  
don't require having a version identifier. These are generally based  
on an "ignore" approach whereby elements and attributes that the  
processor doesn't know about are silently skipped. That means we can  
add new features in the next revision and it won't break older UAs. If  
at some point we make breaking changes, then we just change the  
namespace.

Note that this needs to be defined in v1, so no, I think we have to  
cross that bridge now. SVG includes this strategy:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/implnote.html#UnsupportedProps

It is worth pointing out that porting the same strategy to the  
configuration document would be simpler.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:14:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT