Re: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)

Larry Masinter wrote:
> In any case, I think we're past the stage of debating
> the proposals themselves. There are two change proposals,
> one which reinstates DOCTYPE based versioning, and one
> that doesn't. 
> 
> I'll stop posting email which isn't supplying new information;
> I thought the accessibility regulation case was new, but
> the XML editor case wasn't.
> 
> If you have some friendly amendment to my change proposal
> you'd like to suggest, that could be a topic for discussion,
> but let's not rehash all the old arguments?

I'll answer Maciej's question, but I want to echo Larry's point: the 
focus here should be on creating or improving concrete proposals.

The short answer to Maciej's question is that Atom is extensible.  A 
longer answer can be found here:

http://www.google.com/search?q=PaceRemoveVersionAttr

> Sorry,
> 
> Larry

- Sam Ruby

> http://larry.masinter.net
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 6:33 PM
> To: Sam Ruby
> Cc: Larry Masinter; 'Adam Barth'; 'HTML WG'
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-4 (html-versioning) (vs. ISSUE-30 longdesc)
> 
> 
> On Feb 28, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> - As far as I can tell, Atom has no in-band format version  
>> indicator.
>>> There is a namespace URI but no indication of intent to change it  
>>> for future Atom versions.
>> Atom has no in-band format version indicator.  There is a namespace
> 
>> URI, but the explicit intent was NOT to change it for potential  
>> future Atom versions.  See:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-6.2
> 
> Sam, I'm curious. Why did the ATOMPUB WG choose not to have a version
> 
> identifier? Was there any archived discussion of this which you could
> 
> point us to?
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 04:06:58 UTC