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

On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 17:49 +0200, Marc de Graauw wrote:
> The full formalization is available at:

I took a look; it does look coherent, though it might
take a lot of examples to motivate that much detail/complexity.

I'm mulling it over.

> (Printer friendly:
> | 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."
> I don't know if this is a good idea - often language specs do not contain
> formalisms to establish compatibility, so wouldn't this leave compatibility
> undefined?

It would leave it perhaps a bit less formalized, but not completely

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 21:17:58 UTC