- From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:54:11 +0200
- To: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com> <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
- Cc: <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Aug 25, 2009, at 15:52 , <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com> <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com > wrote: > Is it open season on these issues? 365.256366 days a year! > Well, how's this for a discussion kick-off: no versioning. > > Backward compatibility MUST be maintained in future versions of the > same > API. This means that existing methods, parameters, callbacks and > classes > MUST NOT be changed if they have been featured in any previous > *approved* versions of a W3C API specification. If changes are > required > that intend to break any existing methods, parameters, callbacks and > classes in previously approved W3C API specifications then a new API > name MUST be allocated for this effort. I'm in full agreement. I'd simply add that "approved" should normally mean that it's reached Recommendation status, but can at times be extended to apply to something that is really widely deployed and used (e.g. this has been a guiding principle in specifying the XMLHttpRequest API, even though it meant that it's not all that elegant everywhere). > I'd prefer less > functionality as long as we have a solid foundation to build from in > the > future. Hear, hear! -- Robin Berjon robineko — setting new standards http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 15:10:10 UTC