Re: Another take on versioning

Rereading the proposal I realized it says exactly the opposite. It says 
that missing version implies "the latest version".
Could you explain the rationale/value in that interpretation over having 
it imply "1.0" ?
Due to the inheritance of versions through the document (a really cool 
Idea IMHO) At the very top of the pipeline it would only take adding 1 
attribute to convert a pipeline to a future version.

David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com  
http://www.calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org
812-482-5224



David A. Lee wrote:
> Cant the absence of the version attribute be implied to mean "1.0" ?
> That way any existing pipeline is implicitly "1.0"
> Making something required that wasnt at this stage of the game will 
> break existing pipelines.
>
> David A. Lee
> dlee@calldei.com  
> http://www.calldei.com
> http://www.xmlsh.org
> 812-482-5224
>
>
> Florent Georges wrote:
>> 2009/10/8 Norman Walsh wrote:
>>
>>   Hi,
>>
>>   
>>> I wonder if this would be better.
>>>     
>>
>>   I think introducing the version attribute is a good thing.  But why
>> don't making it required?  If a further version wants to introduce
>> slight differences for the same components (I know that can sound
>> weird, but think about XSLT 1.0 vs. 2.0), that won't be possible if we
>> have a lot of legacy pipelines without explicit version.
>>
>>   But if we know that existing pipelines have version="1.0" we will be
>> less limited.  For instance if XProc 2.0 wants, hum, let's say, just
>> by chance, to use XDM ;-)
>>
>>   Regards,
>>
>>