- From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:21:13 +0200
- To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@microsoft.com>
- Cc: public-device-apis@w3.org
On Aug 31, 2009, at 19:28 , Chris Wilson wrote: > I’d suggest a different wording, because I disagree that “…are not > useful in a web context and should be forsaken,” but I agree they’re > probably not necessary here. I say this because the scope of > “limited deltas” that do not “break real-world code” are a highly > contentious subject, particularly given the intranet (and extranet) > application of web apps. I chose the harshest meaning to make sure we were all on the same page — I'm happy so long as we have a resolution as to what to do within the boundaries of this WG (even if we disagree on the reasons why). I can rephrase to a milder proposition though: This house believes that explicit version mechanisms on an API, such as have been done elsewhere using for instance hasFeature(), a version attribute on interface object, or a version parameter passed to a constructor are too brittle to be relied upon in a context in which multiple releases of multiple competing implementations must be supported in parallel since the failure of a single one condemns the entire approach. Future revisions should be strictly additive, or change names. In rare cases the WG may convince itself otherwise after careful consideration. -- Robin Berjon robineko — setting new standards http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2009 13:24:20 UTC