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

Re: Updated compatible versioning strategies document (section 5 Forwards Compatible ACTION-107)

From: David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 12:57:40 -0700
Message-ID: <2d509b1b0805161257p7d6369deve1f91f0dd8d4a649@mail.gmail.com>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Proposal:

A good example of an incompatible change that used the traditional minor
version identifier change is
XML 1.1

Cheers,
Dave

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Dan Connolly writes:
>
> > I'm reasonably happy to see the XML 1.1 story incorporated.
> > Noah raises some interesting points about the historical details,
> > but I doubt that treating them fully is worth the screenspace
> > it would take.
>
> I think I agree on that, though if there were an easy way it would be
> interesting.  At the risk of repeating my self, let me re-emphasize that
> my actual point was only indirectly about XML 1.0;  it was specifically
> the claim in the following that the change had been "identified as minor":
>
> "A good example of an incompatible changed identified as a minor change is
> XML 1.1"
>
> I'm trying to make the case that there's nothing in any of the pertinent
> XML Recommendations that claims that the change in question is "minor".  I
> suggest we correct that misstatement, regardless of whether or not it's
> worth telling in detail the story of how XML 1.0 changed between Editions
> 2 & 3, or whether we want to say any more than the drafts already say
> about XML 1.1.
>
> Noah
>
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 19:58:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:57 GMT