W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: ISSUE-55: Re-enable @profile in HTML5 (draft 1)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:50:27 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0909281150p186e06cag320c5eb8c9faff4d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> ...
>> Defining versioning syntax now seems premature if the current de facto
>> processing model is to ignore the versioning syntax (correct?) and the de
>> facto authoring practice is not to emit the versioning syntax. If all goes
>> well, versioning syntax is never needed.
>> If things go wrong and in the future there is a need to signal versioning,
>> that bridge can be crossed then and versioning syntax added.
> How is this supposed to work if versioning isn't being considered upfront?
> As far as I can tell, if versioning isn't there from version 1, there's no
> way to may incompatible changes (which may be good, but that's an orthogonal
> question).

If you want to do *versioning* then yes doing that up front seems like
a good idea yes. However the version *identifier* seems like something
you can wait with until version 2. Simply let the absence of a version
identifier identify that version 1 is used. If Philip Taylor's numbers
are representative, then it seems like in practice it's already the
case that the lack of version identifier is used to indicate that
version 1.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 19:04:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC