W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2007

RE: definition of forward compatible/backward compatible still an open problem [XMLVersioning-41 ISSUE-41]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:06:29 -0500
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: www-tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1188003989.29837.1649.camel@pav>

On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 15:46 -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> Right.  Where do we go from here?  You're not comfortable with the
> current definition for reasons you've stated.  It also sounds like we
> don't have a counter-proposal, and further generating a counter proposal
> could involve a huge amount of time in the way of research.
> Can we weaken the definition and effectively say it's language
> dependent?  
> "I1 is compatible with I2 in a language specific manner such that is not
> generalizable."

That's not a bad idea.

I'm trying to remember if any of the more down-to-earth stuff
in the strategies section depends on these definitions
very strongly. I'll try to think it over.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2007 01:06:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:17 UTC