W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-htacg@w3.org > February 2015

API Change - tidyReleaseDate()

From: Jim Derry <balthisar@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:13:49 +0800
Message-ID: <CABUm+BdUh-t39M5pJ3EpgzDUCekm0vtT7Q8Qj5=a9XmsZr=v_w@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-htacg@w3.org, html-tidy@w3.org, tidy-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
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 02:14:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 February 2015 02:14:17 UTC