W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Updated Versioning Strategies document

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:13:32 -0700
Message-ID: <480390BC.9040501@oracle.com>
To: Marc de Graauw <marc@marcdegraauw.com>
CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, orchard@pacificspirit.com, www-tag@w3.org

It was, indeed, the inclusion of Programming Languages in the scope that 
worried me.
Ashok

Marc de Graauw wrote:
> Noah,
>
> I think you're right that the problem area is wider than markup languages, but I
> agree with Ashok that all artificial languages is too wide a scope. I've
> commented that programming languages don't fit in well with the Finding: source
> code usually doesn't have a version identifier, 'ignore unknown' is most often
> not a desideratum in source code (see my Python 3 example in [1]) , etc.
>
> I think the difference is more or less between languages which contain data
> (including text) and languages which contain instructions. Admittedly this is a
> vague criterion, since there are abundant examples of languages which cross this
> line, but still, it seems the general direction to take.
>
> But it's certainly true that the Finding does (mostly) apply to non-markup
> data-oriented languages.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marc
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Apr/0082.html
>
> | Ashok Malhotra writes:
> | 
> | > Thus, the heart of the finding is section 5. So, I feel we 
> | should fix 
> | > the earlier parts and state clearly our focus on markup 
> | languages and 
> | > their problems.
> | 
> | Well, this seems to be an area where some of us have differing 
> | inclinations, and I'm afraid Dave will feel pulled in different 
> | directions.  Dave's original work several years ago focussed 
> | mainly on XML 
> | in particular.  Some of us felt that it was important to set out the 
> | general principles in terms that are more general than markup 
> | languages 
> | specifically.  Forwards and backwards compatibility, and how 
> | one models 
> | the interpretation of new language features by older 
> | processors, seems to 
> | be a foundation that one needs independent of whether the new 
> | features are 
> | realized as markup or in other forms.   Also, in practice, 
> | markup-based 
> | languages have lots of content that's not explicitly marked 
> | up, such as 
> | the contents of XML attributes and text elements.  The rules for 
> | "versioning" these sublangages tend to be very similar to the 
> | versioning 
> | of documents in non-markup languages.   Thus, discussing only the 
> | evolution of the markup itself really doesn't address the problem in 
> | general, even for languages that are markup-based. Finally, I 
> | think the 
> | finding needs to reflect the intentions of the TAG as a 
> | whole, and at this 
> | point it's the more general analysis that the TAG has spent 
> | most time on. 
> | I suspect Dave would have been happy enough if we had done a more 
> | markup-specific finding, but I think we will do a better 
> | service to the 
> | community if we can set out some of the more fundamental issues in 
> | versioning.
> | 
> | Noah
> | 
> | --------------------------------------
> | Noah Mendelsohn 
> | IBM Corporation
> | One Rogers Street
> | Cambridge, MA 02142
> | 1-617-693-4036
> | --------------------------------------
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> | Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
> | 04/13/2008 03:54 PM
> | Please respond to ashok.malhotra
> |  
> |         To:     orchard@pacificspirit.com
> |         cc:     www-tag@w3.org, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
> |         Subject:        Re: Updated Versioning Strategies document
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | Dave:
> | My action was to review only sections 2 and 4 but I ended up 
> | reading the 
> | entire document in fair detail.
> | 
> | My initial reaction was surprise at the scope of the document. You 
> | address versioning of all (artificial) languages. With such a broad 
> | scope it's difficult to make sharp recommendations. Thus, the 
> | first part 
> | of the finding reads like a tutorial on versioning. But then I got to 
> | section 5, which is focused on markup languages and their 
> | problems i.e. 
> | using existing software (browsers) with new versions of the 
> | language and 
> | the document got much more focused and useful.
> | 
> | Thus, the heart of the finding is section 5. So, I feel we should fix 
> | the earlier parts and state clearly our focus on markup languages and 
> | their problems.
> | 
> | Specific Editorial Comments
> | 
> | Abstract:
> | 
> | "Separate documents contain the terminology definitions and 
> | XML language 
> | specific discussion". Please add pointers.
> | 
> | 1. Introduction
> | 
> | 1. The language should be extensible i.e. . (few words here)
> | 
> | 2. " . text of a language ." I don't like this. Seems to talk 
> | about the 
> | documentation. Perhaps you mean "statements of a language" or 
> | "sentences 
> | in the language"
> | 
> | 3. " .. a given language version should define a set of compatible 
> | future version identifiers." Hard to do since I don't know 
> | what future 
> | versions of the language will contain.
> | 
> | 1.2 Kinds of Languages
> | 
> | Bug in reference under bullet 3.
> | 
> | 2.1 Why Have a Strategy?
> | 
> | " . there are many messages that don't use any features of the new 
> | version or perhaps it is appropriate to simply ignore components that 
> | are not recognized."
> | 
> | You have discussed only language text so far. Where do messages and 
> | components come in?
> | 
> | "Often, what is needed is some sort of middle ground solution." What 
> | might such a solution look like?
> | 
> | Remainder of 2 and 4. You give examples of RSS and HTML but other 
> | examples of use/misuse of version numbers and other strategy would be 
> | really great! I realize this requires a great deal of work.
> | 
> | 5. Java did remove features by marking them as 
> | 'deprecated'and providing 
> | compiler warnings and then removing them in later versions.
> | 
> | At the end of the section you say "select one of the following 3 
> | alternatives" but there are only 2 alternatives. I prefer the second.
> | 
> | 5.1 The SOAP MustUnderstand is not a language feature. It's a 
> | directive 
> | to the processor.
> | 
> | "Choosing to ignore the container node only helped HTML considerably, 
> | but there are some elements who's children also should be ignored for 
> | rendering, particularly the /Script/ element." I'm not sure what you 
> | meant to say. Is this sentence missing a "not".
> | 
> | 7. I would remove the last sentence. It seems to have a typo as well.
> | 
> | All the best, Ashok
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | Dave Orchard wrote:
> | > Based upon feedback from Noah, the TAG's Feb f2f, and phone 
> | > discussions with Noah.
> | > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-compatibility-strategies
> | > 
> | http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-compatibility-strate
> | gies-20080328.html
> | 
> | > These are now ready for review by Ashok, Dan, Noah, Norm, and Raman 
> | > per our agreements at the Vancouver F2F in 
> | > http://www.w3.org/2008/02/26-tagmem-minutes#ActionSummary
> | > Cheers,
> | > Dave
> | 
> | 
> | -- 
> | All the best, Ashok
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | 
>
>   


-- 
All the best, Ashok
Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 17:28:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:56 GMT