Re: 2.13, flawed?

"Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com> writes:

> As a consequence, future specifications must not change the semantics
> of existing step types without changing their names.
>
> Two points.
>
> 1. Will W3C accept such a constraint on a future WG? If this WG remains,
>   do you want to so constrain yourselves? How about 'should'?

No, it has to be a must. If you changed the semantics without changing
the name, then a 1.0 processor and a 1.1 processor might evaluate the
same pipeline and do two different things.

> 2. Can I change the syntax... so long as the semantics remain the same?

If we change the syntax in some backwards incompatible way then I
guess it won't matter since a 1.0 processor will reject the XML
document as not being a pipeline.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Fellow's Law: All fixed-sized fields
http://nwalsh.com/            | are too small.--David Fellows