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

Re: API Change - tidyReleaseDate()

From: Richard A. O'Keefe <ok@cs.otago.ac.nz>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:36:55 +1300
Cc: public-htacg@w3.org, html-tidy@w3.org, tidy-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-Id: <B57CA5BF-D784-4A65-A432-1081398311E2@cs.otago.ac.nz>
To: Jim Derry <balthisar@gmail.com>

On 10/02/2015, at 3:13 pm, Jim Derry <balthisar@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

There is nothing about a semantic versioning system that forbids you 
offering timestamps *as well*.  Release dates and versions are quite
different, indeed, nearly independent things.  (A patched release of an
old version can be released after a new version.)

Suppose a program (I have a particular one in mind) tells you that it
is version 5.9.124867.  What does that actually signify?  Is that a recent
version or an obsolete version?  But when it tells me it was released on
2010/08/11 then I *know* that it is an old version *without having to check
some web site to see what the latest version is*.

> 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()`

Why?  And why should it be untrustworthy?

If I want to answer the question "How likely is it that this version of Tidy might
need updating", a release date is a better clue than a version number.
Especially when your build tools should give you accurate release dates for free!

One thing I will say is that wrong answers are, as a rule, WORSE than no answers.
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 01:37:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 01:37:43 UTC