- From: Marc de Graauw <marc@marcdegraauw.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:01:58 +0200
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
In the minutes it says: | Marc de Graauw wrote an article on xml.com, spurred in part | by our earlier discussions. He proposes you give not a single | version, but indicate each | version that you believe the document conforms to. One correction: the gist of what I'm saying is not indicate each version sender believes the document _conforms_ to, but each version (or more general: language capability) the sender _requires_ the receiver to understand. Receiver may then ignore the rest. (In my examples, the docs conform to the versions listed in the examples, but sender could very well require a language capability which describes only a small part of a doc.) Conformance IMO is not the main point, it is the question whether a receiver may safely process a doc which receiver does not fully understand. Note that I'm speaking from a background of digital exchanges (healthcare and justice amongst others) which are embedded in a legal framework, and processing an incoming document is not without obligations. (This situation is very different from HTML, where 'sender' often has little or no control over what 'receivers' do with docs.) I appreciate the forward compatibility mechanism proposed in the Versioning Finding, but believe there need to be fine-grained mechanisms to overrule 'IgnoreUnknown' behaviour for such digital exchanges, and I tried to explore one principle for it: list all capabilities required in the instance. Since receveivers will know all capabilities implemented in the receiving processor, most situations can be resolved, whether receiver of sender is the later version. Regards, Marc de Graauw http://www.marcdegraauw.com
Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 20:02:14 UTC