- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 07:00:55 -0500
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, 'Adam Barth' <w3c@adambarth.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:58, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> which reminds me that the Atom WG successfully assigned the final >> namespace name only *after* the spec was approved, thereby avoiding >> problems with compatibility problems of early implementations. > > It's not clear to me that the Atom WG was "successful" on this point. > There are still a lot of "Atom 0.3" feeds around. To the point that > feed consuming apps probably need to support "Atom 0.3" to be > competitive. I do not believe that to be the case. > I see how this could be seen as a versioning success (you can > distinguish 0.3 and 1.0), but I see it as a failure to eradicate > versioned draft-based deployments because versioning allows you to > support both. That is, versioning didn't remove the problem of old > stuff sticking around. Instead, to avoid the problem of having to > support multiple versions in the future, there needs to be a solution > other that distinguishable versions. - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 12:01:31 UTC