- From: Jim Derry <balthisar@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:13:49 +0800
- To: public-htacg@w3.org, html-tidy@w3.org, tidy-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
- Message-ID: <CABUm+BdUh-t39M5pJ3EpgzDUCekm0vtT7Q8Qj5=a9XmsZr=v_w@mail.gmail.com>
Cross-posted to [1]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-htacg/ [2]: https://sourceforge.net/p/tidy/mailman/tidy-develop [3]: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/html-tidy/ Good day all, This is a request for comments about the treatment of `tidyReleaseDate()`. HTACG' current proposal and working branch currently is working on the assumption that we will move to a semantic versioning system as a replacement for a date-based version system. This has been implemented on the working branch using `tidyLibraryVersion()` in the API. Our goal is the first 5.0.0-rc.1 by February's end. While we will deprecate `tidyReleaseDate()` it still has to return a valid date as TidyLib users may be using it. Current development branch returns Unix epoch time (1970/1/1), which we feel should be enough of an indicator to users that the `tidyReleaseDate()` is no longer trustworthy. I seek your opinions on whether you or anyone you are aware of: - currently use `tidyReleaseDate()` in a manner that justifies its continued existence and support? - currently use it in a way that returning Unix epoch would break your application? - unwilling to make changes to your existing application to support the transition to `tidyLibraryversion()`? - have a better suggestion for a suitable return value during the deprecation period? Please comment to any of these lists, or alternative on the [issues tracker][1]. Thank you. References: [1]: https://github.com/htacg/tidy-html5/issues/148 -- --- Jim Derry Clinton Township, MI, USA Nanjing, Jiangsu, China PRC
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 02:14:18 UTC