- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:27:25 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2iqkql4ki.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> writes: > So version indicators only support extensibility (or whatever other > goal you're after) if the future consequences for both old and new > consumers are articulated and documented before the whole process gets > started. But that's not uniquely true of version indicators, is it? That's true no matter what technique is used to distinguish one version from another. The alternative, where there aren't any version identifiers, requires consumers to deal with both old and new markup as well. For some languages and some applications, it may be reasonable to define a universal semantics for all versions, such as the HTML rule of ignoring wrappers it doesn't recognize. (Not that that hasn't introduced problems of its own, with special elements created over time just to work around the consequences of the "ignore wrappers" rule.) For other languages and other applications, it may not be reasoanble to define a universal semantics. Applications must be expected in that case to do something else. Version identifiers offer a convenient mechanism to help users distinguish between versions, even if machines don't need them: "Unexpected element 'fribble' encountered in this V1.2.3 document. The element 'fribble' is not defined in V1.2.3." Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Do not seek to follow in the footsteps http://nwalsh.com/ | of men of old; seek what they | sought.--Matsuo Basho
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 11:28:11 UTC