W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, versioning

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:01:45 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670906010101s3340569er586460f59293a30e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Marcin Hanclik
<Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com> wrote:
> Hi Marcos, All,
> These are my further considerations for the versioning of the widget contents.
> My understanding is that versioning is/may be included in namespace definition.
> The usage of the "version" attribute in P&C seems to be the first usage of this attribute for document version and not for specification format versioning.


> P&C, an an interchange format is versionless.


> I have reviewed a few recommendations from http://www.w3.org/TR/.
> a) SVGT1.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/ says:
> "Future versions of this specification will maintain backwards compatibility with previous versions of the language"
> SVGT1.2 uses version attribute to describe the version of the standard that was used to write the SVG document.
> They also use "baseProfile" as a further means for content versioning/requirements in http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/single-page.html#implnote-VersionControl.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-sml-if-20090512/#Packaging says:
> "The SMLIFVersion attribute is defined on the model element and may be useful when diagnosing failures encountered while processing SML-IF documents. For example, if a document asserts conformance with version 1.1 of the SML-IF specification and a human can see that it is not in fact conformant, then it is likely that the problem occurred during the production of the document. If the same document appears to humans to be conformant, then the focus of diagnosis might shift toward the SML-IF consumer and its invocation parameters."

I have no idea what SML is.

> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014/#docconf says:
> There SHOULD be a @version attribute on the html element with the value "XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/#versions-namespaces-and-identifiers says:
> "Note: No provision is made for an explicit version number in this specification. If a future version of this specification requires
> explicit versioning of the document format, a different namespace will be used."
> The conclusions:
> 1. To avoid semantic collisions with other W3C standards, I suggest changing "version" to e.g. "docversion".
> 2. The text similar to the one from DigSig spec could be put to P&C 8.1, just to show roadmap and intentions.

I don't agree with your conclusion. Versioning in the P&C is
understood in the context of the widget element. That is, the widget's
version is X. What version of the configuration document format is
denoted by the namespace.

Marcos Caceres
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 08:02:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:53 UTC