Re: ZIP-based packages and URI references into them ODF proposal

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > > Of course it makes sense for a specification to state how 
> > > extensibility works.
> > 
> > Stating what the extensibility mechanisms of a language are, and 
> > stating the future actions of as yet non-existent working groups, are 
> > two very different things.
> Yes. So what?

You asked for the latter. The spec already has the former.

> If this WG (the HTML WG as of 2008) defines the syntax for future 
> elements to be non-void, and code implements that behavior, I'd be 
> surprised if a future WG would reverse that decision.

I've been involved in W3C working groups long enough to not at all be 
surprised by working groups reversing decisions.

> That's a very verbose way to state "must ignore unknown values".

It's a precise way of saying it, that leaves nothing ambiguous. That's the 
whole point.

> So, if XML 1.0 *did* say that, how would you then introduce a new value? 
> Older recipients would ignore it, after all.

If older recipients ignore the value, then we're golden. Just introduce 
the new value, and then you have predictable down-level behavior and 
predictable up-level behavior.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 13:42:05 UTC