[closed] 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'?

The WG considered this issue on 29 Jan and concluded that there is no
precedent for an objection to the spec on these grounds.

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

Well, the semantic constraint is there so that if an older processor
sees a newer version of the step, it won't silently do the wrong
thing. If you change the syntax, that can't happen so I don't think
it's an issue.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Two starving men cannot be twice as
http://nwalsh.com/            | hungry as one; but two rascals can be
                              | ten times as vicious as one.--George
                              | Bernard Shaw