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: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:14:12 +0100
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DDA5A951-12EF-4AB0-B269-10CD8AFA3776@berjon.com>
To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
On Mar 18, 2009, at 11:33 , Andrew Welch wrote:
> - when multiple versions of the xml exist, you need some way to
> differentiate them other than checking for the existence of certain
> elements/attribute

You state that as a requirement but don't explain what the use case  
for it is. Personally, I don't see any while I see several pointing in  
the other direction.

> That's how XSLT 2.0 does it, and I think XHTML 2.0, but I notice XSD
> 1.1 is going down a different route...

XSLT 2.0 is a programming language (as opposed to a configuration file  
for instance), and if you're using 2.0 features you want it to break  
early (IIRC they also changed the semantics of some bits). Me, given  
the changes, I would've gone with a new namespace but that's water  
under the bridge.

XHTML 2.0 is not trying to be backwards compatible, that's HTML5's  
job. It initially had a different namespace, and its recent attempt to  
reverting to using the XHTML 1.x namespace is IMHO a poor decision  
that I am rather confident will be overturned (if it hasn't already).

The reason there isn't One True Way of doing XML versioning is because  
the use cases vary across languages. If you add a <pony> element to  
SVG it's probably fine if it's not displayed as you can fallback, but  
if you add a <transfer-me-money/> element to a SOAP message you  
probably don't want people to ignore it.

Our usage scenarios for improved configurations don't involve the sort  
of stringent versioning that would require variants on @version or  
@mustUnderstand. Furthermore, the complexity of using a version  
attribute has to take into account the fact that the widget stack is  
modularised: what happens when a separate specification (signatures,  
window modes, etc.) adds an element to the configuration file (as they  
well can)? Do you increment the version? Add other version attributes?  
Add some tokens as in version="1.0 +dsig +wm"?

I understand the draw to flagging versions, it somehow "feels neater",  
and that's why people tend to want to throw them in (I just made the  
very same comments to Bondi). But for our usage scenarios, it neither  
helps nor scales.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:14:49 GMT

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