Re: should CSS, HTML, etc. documents bear version information? (XMLVersioning-41?)

On 03/04/07, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:

> > I disagree with that statement. An application can be said to
> > 'understand' an instance if the instance contains only elements
> > from the schema for which it was designed.
>
> If by "understand" you mean "fully understand", then sure.
I'm talking about software, not people. They blow up | they process.
I guess there are no shades of gray.

  But that's
> not a particularly practical definition IME.  A decent extensibility
> model can provide for *partial* understanding whereby the server can
> include extensions which it know may not be understood, and clients
> may or may not understand them.  This provides for better decoupling
> in time - better independent evolution - than a model which relies on
> shared schemas.

I read that as, it might work, if we're lucky.

I mailed Mark off list to see if this was 'dochead' vs 'datahead'
perhaps it isn't. I don't know.

I don't like writing software that might work if we're lucky.

regards... .a dochead.

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:59:01 UTC