Re: update ISSUE-41

Larry: 

I think this is overall an excellent description and I think it's a very 
helpful framing of the issue we should pursue.  I would suggest a couple 
of tweaks:

<asProposedBelow>
 Is Jonathan’s framework complete enough to use it as a basis for 
evaluation of versioning mechanisms? What else do we need to do ? Does it 
supply sufficient design principles for versioning?
</asProposedBelow>
<suggestedRevision change="firstSentenceAdded">
What are general principles of language evolution and associated 
versioning mechanims.   For example,  Is Jonathan’s framework complete 
enough to use it as a basis for evaluation of versioning mechanisms? What 
else do we need to do ? Does it supply sufficient design principles for 
versioning?</suggestedRevision>

<asProposedBelow>
What are the version indicators available in HTML for signifying new 
versions? DOCTYPE, namespace indicators, new tag names, special tags, etc?
</asProposedBelow>
<suggestedRevision>
What are the general principles relating to use or avoidance of explicit 
version identifiers: are explicit markers always/sometimes/never a good 
idea?   Regarding HTML in particular, what are the indicators availablefor 
signifying new versions? DOCTYPE, namespace indicators, new tag names, 
special tags, etc?   What can we learn from comparing experiences with CSS 
(no explicit version indicator) and other languages like HTML?
</suggestedRevision>

Thank you.

Noah


--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
04/24/2009 08:54 PM
 
        To:     "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        update ISSUE-41


http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/41

 
I renamed this issue from “XML Versioning” to “Language Versioning”, 
updated the description, and added a note about the direction I hope our 
discussion will take.
 
Re ACTION-259, at the TAG meeting,  I was asked to be more specific about 
what questions I’m asking. So here’s a list of questions:
 
 
Is my reformulation of Issue-41 OK with you? I know it broadens the topic, 
but in this case, broadening might make it easier to understand policy.
 Is Jonathan’s framework complete enough to use it as a basis for 
evaluation of versioning mechanisms? What else do we need to do ? Does it 
supply sufficient design principles for versioning?
 What constitutes a “Version” of HTML? Of course we have the 
specifications as they are released by W3C (HTML 1, 2, 3, 4, 4.01 etc), 
but there are also the distributed extensions of new tags, values? New 
MIME types for included content?
I think it would be productive to focus on HTML, but also consider CSS, 
JavaScript, and plugin-based extensions as well, as we think about web 
evolution. Do you agree?
What are the versioning mechanisms of CSS, JavaScript, JavaScript APIs, 
plugins, etc.
 What are the means by which old readers *could* recognize new content and 
*could* do something useful other than ‘fail’ (for web content in 
particular, HTML, CSS, etc.)
enter a special mode (“standards mode”)
ignore new features and select alternate content
warn the user that the content isn’t displayable properly
What are the version indicators available in HTML for signifying new 
versions? DOCTYPE, namespace indicators, new tag names, special tags, etc?
Are you willing to do a research literature search on the general issue of 
language versioning? Somehow I think this must be a topic that has been 
studied in the last 60 years of computer language definition and 
evolution.   I’d rather now plow new ground if there is a bibliography… 
can you find any useful references?
 
Unfortunately, I’m not worn down by the last 8 years of discussion of 
versioning, so maybe these are all well-plowed topics.
 
Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net

Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 16:16:29 UTC