On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Marcin Hanclik <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Marcos, All, > > These are my further considerations for the versioning of the widget contents. > > My understanding is that versioning is/may be included in namespace > definition. > > The usage of the "version" attribute in P&C seems to be the first usage of > this attribute for document version and not for specification format > versioning. >
exactly. > P&C, an an interchange format is versionless. correct. > I have reviewed a few recommendations from http://www.w3.org/TR/. > a) SVGT1.2 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/ says: > "Future versions of this specification will maintain backwards compatibility > with previous versions of the language" > SVGT1.2 uses version attribute to describe the version of the standard that > was used to write the SVG document. > They also use "baseProfile" as a further means for content > versioning/requirements in > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/single-page.html#implnote-VersionControl. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-sml-if-20090512/#Packaging says: > "The SMLIFVersion attribute is defined on the model element and may be useful > when diagnosing failures encountered while processing SML-IF documents. For > example, if a document asserts conformance with version 1.1 of the SML-IF > specification and a human can see that it is not in fact conformant, then it > is likely that the problem occurred during the production of the document. If > the same document appears to humans to be conformant, then the focus of > diagnosis might shift toward the SML-IF consumer and its invocation > parameters." > I have no idea what SML is. > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014/#docconf says: > There SHOULD be a @version attribute on the html element with the value > "XHTML+RDFa 1.0" > > http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-digsig/#versions-namespaces-and-identifiers says: > "Note: No provision is made for an explicit version number in this > specification. If a future version of this specification requires > explicit versioning of the document format, a different namespace will be > used." > > The conclusions: > 1. To avoid semantic collisions with other W3C standards, I suggest changing > "version" to e.g. "docversion". > 2. The text similar to the one from DigSig spec could be put to P&C 8.1, just > to show roadmap and intentions. > I don't agree with your conclusion. Versioning in the P&C is understood in the context of the widget element. That is, the widget's version is X. What version of the configuration document format is denoted by the namespace. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
