- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:04:01 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26958 --- Comment #15 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- If I could also add what is intended as a constructive remark on the original subject of this bug report ("not precluding updates") I think it would be very helpful if we had a concrete description of what kind of thing it is that we are intending not to preclude. It's become clear in recent weeks as we have discussed different models of trees and graphs that there are many different possibilities of what might happen once you allow maps to be both mutable and refernceable, and it seems that people are happy to preclude some of these models and not others. So I would suggest (again) that the best way of not precluding any particular future development is to say nothing until we have designed and reached consensus on that future developement. Otherwise we're being asked to sign a blank cheque. Just as we're being told that agreeing to the requirements document saying that we "would not preclude updates" means we have to put something in the data model, we are then going to be told that a carefully muted form of words in the data model means we agreed to some particular kind of database system becoming within the scope of our specs. If we had a concrete proposal on the table for a spec that involved updateable maps and arrays, we would at least have some idea of what we are trying not to preclude. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2014 00:04:03 UTC