W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > December 2008

Re: 2.13, flawed?

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:19:40 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2y6y9b7s3.fsf@nwalsh.com>
"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes:

> As a consequence, future specifications must not change the semantics
> of existing step types without changing their names.
> Two points.
> 1. Will W3C accept such a constraint on a future WG? If this WG remains,
>   do you want to so constrain yourselves? How about 'should'?

No, it has to be a must. If you changed the semantics without changing
the name, then a 1.0 processor and a 1.1 processor might evaluate the
same pipeline and do two different things.

> 2. Can I change the syntax... so long as the semantics remain the same?

If we change the syntax in some backwards incompatible way then I
guess it won't matter since a 1.0 processor will reject the XML
document as not being a pipeline.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Fellow's Law: All fixed-sized fields
http://nwalsh.com/            | are too small.--David Fellows

Received on Sunday, 21 December 2008 20:20:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:26 UTC