- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:27:36 +0100
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>, Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On Dec 18, 2009, at 17:22 , Robin Berjon wrote: > On Dec 17, 2009, at 03:20 , Larry Masinter wrote: >> 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. > > So I don't think that it's a question of whether implementations drift compared to specifications — even though in practice that's a factor. The problem is that using a version indicator is *not* a versioning strategy, but as soon as you start having a versioning strategy you cease needing a version indicator. I've been editing an old paper about "XML Bad Practices" I'd presented at XML Prague last year and have been releasing it in small parcels[0]. There's a more detailed discussion of this specific topic at: http://berjon.com/blog/2009/12/xmlbp-naive-versioning.html A longer and more thorough discussion of versioning strategies is certainly needed. It seems to me that we revisit it with every new working group :) [0] http://berjon.com/blog/2009/12/xmlbp-intro.html -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 21 December 2009 14:28:05 UTC