- From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:41:31 -0700
- To: "Arve Bersvendsen" <arveb@opera.com>
- Cc: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF6BB4CC2E.95BB3808-ON882574EF.007640BC-882574EF.00772877@us.ibm.com>
We didn't attempt to provide algorithms for numeric comparison for anything after the numeric part. Therefore, with our approach, we cannot determine if "1.1Beta1" is greater than or less than "1.1Beta2". The only thing we did to address alpha/beta releases was to *suggest* that the numeric part include a build number. That way, if 1.1Beta1 is build 2045 and 1.1Beta2 is build 2387, then numeric comparison would work if the version numbers were expressed as "1.1.0.2045 Beta1" and "1.1.0.2387 Beta2". We certainly could have tried to force the community to always include the build number (or some other technique that would ensure version number comparisons would be accurate), but given our target audience (i.e., Ajax libraries developers), who aren't always good at following rules, we felt that we would be lucky if we could get them to include any sort of useful version string, and therefore we tried to formulate rules that would tend to match the version strings that they were using today (e.g., "1.1Beta1"). Jon "Arve Bersvendsen" <arveb@opera.com> To Jon Ferraiolo/Menlo Park/IBM@IBMUS, 10/27/2008 02:09 public-webapps PM <public-webapps@w3.org> cc "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, "Thomas Roessler" <tlr@w3.org> Subject Re: [widgets] Version string On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:11:20 +0100, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com> wrote: > We came up with an approach at OpenAjax Alliance for version strings > where the string must begin with N.N (or N.N.N or N.N.N.N) but can > contain arbitrary alpha text after the number value. Then we defined how > to do numeric comparisons between the leading numeric parts of two > different version strings. So, you are allowing something like 2.6.27.4-foo3 and 2.6.27.4-foo4 or 1.2.3.gcc4.qt3 1.2.3.gcc4.qt4 Is any judgment whether one version in these cases is newer than the other? If so, which is newer of the following? 1.2.☺ 1.2.☻ -- Arve Bersvendsen Developer, Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
- image/gif attachment: pic17699.gif
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
Received on Monday, 27 October 2008 21:42:26 UTC