W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2010

Re: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:00:55 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8BAC77.6070905@intertwingly.net>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'Adam Barth' <w3c@adambarth.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:58, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> which reminds me that the Atom WG successfully assigned the final
>> namespace name only *after* the spec was approved, thereby avoiding
>> problems with compatibility problems of early implementations.
> 
> It's not clear to me that the Atom WG was "successful" on this point.
> There are still a lot of "Atom 0.3" feeds around. To the point that
> feed consuming apps probably need to support "Atom 0.3" to be
> competitive.

I do not believe that to be the case.

> I see how this could be seen as a versioning success (you can
> distinguish 0.3 and 1.0), but I see it as a failure to eradicate
> versioned draft-based deployments because versioning allows you to
> support both. That is, versioning didn't remove the problem of old
> stuff sticking around. Instead, to avoid the problem of having to
> support multiple versions in the future, there needs to be a solution
> other that distinguishable versions.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 12:01:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:29 GMT