- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:57:21 +0100
- To: marcosc@opera.com
- Cc: Thomas Landspurg <thomas.landspurg@gmail.com>, SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Mar 17, 2009, at 13:24 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Agreed. Thinking forward, how do you recommend we identify version 2.0
> of the widget configuration file format (or should we just cross that
> bridge when we get to it?) ?
Personally, I would recommend that we don't :) Version identifiers are
largely useless and experience shows that users use them wrong (e.g. a
bunch of SVG out there that's labelled as 1.1 is really 1.2, but
people just copy-paste the root element).
There are strategies to implement versioning of XML vocabularies which
don't require having a version identifier. These are generally based
on an "ignore" approach whereby elements and attributes that the
processor doesn't know about are silently skipped. That means we can
add new features in the next revision and it won't break older UAs. If
at some point we make breaking changes, then we just change the
namespace.
Note that this needs to be defined in v1, so no, I think we have to
cross that bridge now. SVG includes this strategy:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/implnote.html#UnsupportedProps
It is worth pointing out that porting the same strategy to the
configuration document would be simpler.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:14:08 UTC