- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 18:08:51 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26958 --- Comment #31 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> --- In comment 29, Jonathan says: 1. People are creating persistent data now, and there's a big gotcha if we're going to tell them later that they created it the wrong way and it cannot be updated according to our specs. This leads to a question about timing. If it's true that people are creating persistent data now, then aren't we already committed to what you call a 'gotcha', as soon as we define the details of how updates work, whether we do it later (as I take MK to be suggesting) or now (as I take you to be suggesting)? I assume your argument may be that "the gotcha will be less painful now than later", but the argument "the gotcha is less painful at time T1 than at time T2" and the argument "time T1 has no gotcha and time T2 has a gotcha" don't on the face of it seem the same to me. Which are you making? Jonathan also writes: 3. We know what an in-situ update is. Do we? It's not obvious to me that we do; why do you think so? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 18:08:53 UTC