- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:29:19 +0100
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote: > (bcc public-webapps since not as relevant) > > I actually think the TAG discussions about versioning and the use of version > indicators has been helpful, but it's been hard to drive this to a publication, > because there's still some work to be done. However, I think the main insight > I've had is that version indicators have limited (but non-zero) utility in > situations where the popular language implementations evolve independently > of published language specifications. Normally, if language implementations > follow language specifications closely, you can use the version number of > the specification as a good indicator of the version number of the language. > > However, in situations like HTML, where the implementations have evolved > -- and are likely to continue to evolve -- independently of the versions > of the specifications (and each other), the utility of a version indicator > is more confusing. Users would *like* a version indicator to correspond > to a category of implementation, but the only thing we can give version > numbers to realistically are versions of specifications instead. So the > utility is limited to controlled situations where the producer of the document > with a version indicator really carefully intends to note a specification > version, or to cause validation against a particular specification. > > I'm not quite sure what "P&C" is, to know how this analysis applies to it. > Sorry, P&C is the "Widget Packaging and Configuration" specification: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/ -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 11:30:19 UTC