- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:21:39 +0200
- To: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>, "<richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>" <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>, Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Marcin Hanclik wrote: > Hi All, > > Traditionally (discussed thoroughly in WebApps and BONDI) I am in favour of versioning. > > My motivation is not based on the need to release new version of the API or syntax or whatever every month or year. > I would be happy if the standard could stay e.g. in version 1.0 forever. > > The principle is: "give it a name". > We should clearly identify the parties and rules governing the ecosystem, version of the specification is such a rule for APIs and syntaxes. > > My motivation is purely practical. > We have a cloud of: > a) releases of specifications, > b) incomplete or bad implementations, > c) contents. > > In DOM there is hasFeature() method, e.g. explicitly used in the DOM3Events. > If we want to drop versioning then I assume we should also drop hasFeature(), since it is the same problem. > As stated below by Anne new releases of the specification may break backwards compatibility. > If it is ok, then I assume we should allow the content to advertise based what (which version of) specification it was developed. > Content developed against versionless specifications has little chance to survive and be usable if the specification changes. > > It may become a requirement for the software engines to be backwards compatible for practical reasons. > As you may know, versioning - as a generic issue - is currently discussed in TAG and WHATWG, so we could first look at the arguments there, since my belief is that they are similar to ours. > Discussions around versioning are booooooring and getting us nowhere. I've personally had it up to here with filibustering around versioning. We've discussed versioning to death in BONDI, on WebApps, etc. I think we should just take a vote (or something) and reach a formal resolution and be done. Then, when either side raises this again, we just point them to the resolution and move on. As a process thing. It would be nice to have a place where the group's resolutions are publicly available. Is there some way to suck resolutions out of Trackbot? Kind regards, Marcos
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 09:22:28 UTC