- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:50:22 +0100
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > 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. Could you please elaborate? Does the spec specify how to parse or serialize a future element called "foobar"? > ... >> 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. > ... I think the same precision can be reached with less verbosity. >> 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. Well, if it's ok for consumers to ignore a new value, then this is the right approach. The problematic case is when that fallback behaviour is not sufficient. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 13:51:03 UTC