- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:20:29 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Thomas Landspurg <thomas.landspurg@gmail.com>, SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On 3/18/09 9:52 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Andrew Welch<andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 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. >> That's the worst reason ever to do anything! If users are having >> problems because they don't understand what they are copying and >> pasting, then address that > > I think that is what we are doing. By not including a version > identifier, we remove the temptation to make backwards incompatible > changes protected by a version switch. Those are the type of changes > that are harmful since they require more complex authoring than much > of the web seems to use. Agreed. Our current model follows Jonas' thinking. We think that our approach is architecturally sound but I'm open to hearing further suggestions. Kind regards, Marcos
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 09:21:20 UTC