W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > October 2009

Re: Another take on versioning

From: David A. Lee <dlee@calldei.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:53:59 -0400
Message-ID: <4ACDEEF7.8050200@calldei.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
CC: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Yes thats what I was getting at, which is opposite of what the proposal 
states (to my read).

If its optional then make it imply "1.0" not "the latest known version"

David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com  
http://www.calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org
812-482-5224



Norman Walsh wrote:
> "David A. Lee" <dlee@calldei.com> writes:
>   
>> Rereading the proposal I realized it says exactly the opposite. It
>> says that missing version implies "the latest version". Could you
>> explain the rationale/value in that interpretation over having it
>> imply "1.0" ?
>>     
>
> It seemed most consistent with the status quo. In fact, if we had a version
> attribute, it probably would make sense to either make it required or make
> the default 1.0.
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
>   
Received on Thursday, 8 October 2009 13:54:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:27 UTC