- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:37:12 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Thomas Landspurg <thomas.landspurg@gmail.com>, SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > 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). Agreed. This is the reason we did not specify a version or platform attribute for widgets to date. > 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. This is our current model in processing. > 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. Exactly. > 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 We've crossed it :) It's been there since the beginning. > It is worth pointing out that porting the same strategy to the configuration > document would be simpler. Agreed -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:37:59 UTC