- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:06:39 +0200
- To: "Marcin Hanclik" <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, "Andrei Popescu" <andreip@google.com>
- Cc: "Lars Erik Bolstad" <lbolstad@opera.com>, public-geolocation <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:06:44 +0200, Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com> wrote: > I understand your point, I just think of deprecated items and think > whether monotonic growth of the spec could be guaranteed forever. > Having versioning is just as a kind of insurance policy for future, just > in case some incompatibilities could be appear in the future, even in > the long future. Given that this insurance policy is not needed elsewhere (e.g. the DOM, <canvas>, HTML, CSS, etc.) it seems like a premature optimization to add one for geolocation. Also, the versioning for geolocation discussed so far was about reporting to authors what version is supported which does not give you the insurance you seem to want. (I don't think either is needed, fwiw.) > As for me, versioning seems to be the issue for TAG that could be solved > once for all WGs and W3C specs consistently. You make it sound like there is a problem where in fact in practice this hardly is an issue. (Not that I mind the TAG looking into this.) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 19:07:42 UTC