W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

RE: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7)

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:20:15 -0800
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0B0AB8@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
FWIW, just to be clear:

My comments about versioning and version numbers only apply
to the URI scheme, and not to language specifications in 
general.

I haven't reviewed any of the other WebApps documents,
except in the context of reviewing the URI scheme.

In general, I support appropriate use of version numbers in
languages and language specifications, especially since
documents and file formats have ample opportunities for
in-band version indicators. It's unfortunate that URIs,
being compact strings, have no place for version indicators.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:08 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7)

Dear Larry,

thank you for your comments.

On Oct 10, 2009, at 19:44 , Larry Masinter wrote:
> 7) ** EDITORIAL TITLE **
> "Widgets 1.0: Widget URIs" the "1.0" might imply some kind of versioning, but there is no versioning of URI schemes.
> 
> Suggestion: retitle "Widget URIs"

I have provisionally made this change. I agree with Marcos that it would be good to do so throughout the widget family of specifications, especially since there is no reason why versions of its various components need to evolve in synchronised fashion - one could use P+C 4.2 with WARP 2.7.

Recommendation to the WG: apply the same change throughout.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2009 18:24:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT