- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 16:07:36 -0400
- To: Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>, "xml-uri@w3.org" <xml-uri@w3.org>
Sam Hunting wrote: > As I understand the principle, whatever breaks existing documents is > immoral. This applies whether the version number increments or not. I, at least, don't think it's immoral (which I do not introduce as a technical term) to make changes in meaning if the version number is changed; indeed, that is the purpose of version numbers. I just think it would be a bloody pain in the neck for very little gain. Let's save incrementing the version number until there is some user benefit to supporting 1.0.1 or 1.1 or 2.0. -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Received on Friday, 2 June 2000 16:08:19 UTC