- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 08:50:32 -0400
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Cc: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
* Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> [2013-10-09 18:10+0100] > On 09/10/13 16:22, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > >ISSUE-156: Media type parameter for turtle > > > >http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/156 > > > >Raised by: > >On product: > > We should not be changing anything that alters the MIME type > registration nor anything that means deployed code should be > chnaged. > > 1/ The registration is already done and people have been using it. > 2/ Changing the behaviour is a new LC and we do not have the time. My action was to verify that we'd have to re-issue a LC. This is indeed the case, though Philippe Le Hegaret pointed out that we do technically have time since it appears we could easily skip a second CR. The proposal would be to add an optional version=1.1 media type parameter, along with the text "The 'version' parameter identifies a version of the Turtle language. The 2013 Turtle specification (this document) is identified as version '1.1'. Version 1.1 is backwards-compatible with the 2011 W3C Team Submission." That said, the rigorous case for versioning is probably not as strong as the human-engineering case for not versioning. prominent successes without versioning: SPARQL 1.1 does not have a media type to discriminate it from 1.0. CSS has several versions, all of which use the same media type. less successful efforts with versioning: XML1.1 followed the path of rigorous versioning and got so little adoption that most of its grammar extensions were back-ported into 1.0 fifth edition. HTML DOCTYPEs have version numbers which were never reflected in media types or, apparently, in different behaviors in browsers. After all of this, I think we will get the best adoption by simply ignoring the problem (much as that frustrates me). -- -ericP office: +1.617.599.3509 mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59 (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution. There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 12:51:03 UTC