W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

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

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:14:20 +0200
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, "'Adam Barth'" <w3c@adambarth.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0DC1419A-621C-4148-BDBC-00C32B37A1DC@iki.fi>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:58, Julian Reschke wrote:

> which reminds me that the Atom WG successfully assigned the final namespace name only *after* the spec was approved, thereby avoiding problems with compatibility problems of early implementations.

It's not clear to me that the Atom WG was "successful" on this point. There are still a lot of "Atom 0.3" feeds around. To the point that feed consuming apps probably need to support "Atom 0.3" to be competitive.

I see how this could be seen as a versioning success (you can distinguish 0.3 and 1.0), but I see it as a failure to eradicate versioned draft-based deployments because versioning allows you to support both. That is, versioning didn't remove the problem of old stuff sticking around. Instead, to avoid the problem of having to support multiple versions in the future, there needs to be a solution other that distinguishable versions.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 10:14:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:13 UTC