RE: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7)
(bcc public-webapps since not as relevant) 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. However, in situations like HTML, where the implementations have evolved -- and are likely to continue to evolve -- independently of the versions of the specifications (and each other), the utility of a version indicator is more confusing. Users would *like* a version indicator to correspond to a category of implementation, but the only thing we can give version numbers to realistically are versions of specifications instead. So the utility is limited to controlled situations where the producer of the document with a version indicator really carefully intends to note a specification version, or to cause validation against a particular specification. I'm not quite sure what PC is, to know how this analysis applies to it. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net -Original Message- From: Marcin Hanclik [mailto:marcin.hanc...@access-company.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 1:37 PM To: Larry Masinter; Robin Berjon Cc: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: RE: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7) Hi Larry, WOW: It's a pity you were not involved in the discussions around PC's version attribute. Thanks, Marcin From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Larry Masinter [masin...@adobe.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:20 PM To: Robin Berjon Cc: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: RE: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7) FWIW, just to be clear: My comments about versioning and version numbers only apply to the URI scheme, and not to language specifications in general. I haven't reviewed any of the other WebApps documents, except in the context of reviewing the URI scheme. In general, I support appropriate use of version numbers in languages and language specifications, especially since documents and file formats have ample opportunities for in-band version indicators. It's unfortunate that URIs, being compact strings, have no place for version indicators. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net -Original Message- From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:08 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7) Dear Larry, thank you for your comments. On Oct 10, 2009, at 19:44 , Larry Masinter wrote: 7) ** EDITORIAL TITLE ** Widgets 1.0: Widget URIs the 1.0 might imply some kind of versioning, but there is no versioning of URI schemes. Suggestion: retitle Widget URIs I have provisionally made this change. I agree with Marcos that it would be good to do so throughout the widget family of specifications, especially since there is no reason why versions of its various components need to evolve in synchronised fashion - one could use P+C 4.2 with WARP 2.7. Recommendation to the WG: apply the same change throughout. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Access Systems Germany GmbH Essener Strasse 5 | D-46047 Oberhausen HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda www.access-company.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7)
Hi Larry, On Dec 9, 2009, at 19:20 , Larry Masinter wrote: In general, I support appropriate use of version numbers in languages and language specifications, especially since documents and file formats have ample opportunities for in-band version indicators. It's unfortunate that URIs, being compact strings, have no place for version indicators. Thank you for your response. We therefore consider this comment disposed of with the commenter's approval. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7)
Hi Marcin, On Dec 9, 2009, at 22:37 , Marcin Hanclik wrote: WOW: It's a pity you were not involved in the discussions around PC's version attribute. Heh :) I doubt it would have made much of a difference; usage of version identifiers in XML languages has been a topic for almost a decade and has yet to produce much of a use for them that take the X in XML into account! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
RE: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7)
FWIW, just to be clear: My comments about versioning and version numbers only apply to the URI scheme, and not to language specifications in general. I haven't reviewed any of the other WebApps documents, except in the context of reviewing the URI scheme. In general, I support appropriate use of version numbers in languages and language specifications, especially since documents and file formats have ample opportunities for in-band version indicators. It's unfortunate that URIs, being compact strings, have no place for version indicators. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net -Original Message- From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:08 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7) Dear Larry, thank you for your comments. On Oct 10, 2009, at 19:44 , Larry Masinter wrote: 7) ** EDITORIAL TITLE ** Widgets 1.0: Widget URIs the 1.0 might imply some kind of versioning, but there is no versioning of URI schemes. Suggestion: retitle Widget URIs I have provisionally made this change. I agree with Marcos that it would be good to do so throughout the widget family of specifications, especially since there is no reason why versions of its various components need to evolve in synchronised fashion - one could use P+C 4.2 with WARP 2.7. Recommendation to the WG: apply the same change throughout. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
RE: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7)
Hi Larry, WOW: It's a pity you were not involved in the discussions around PC's version attribute. Thanks, Marcin From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Larry Masinter [masin...@adobe.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:20 PM To: Robin Berjon Cc: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: RE: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7) FWIW, just to be clear: My comments about versioning and version numbers only apply to the URI scheme, and not to language specifications in general. I haven't reviewed any of the other WebApps documents, except in the context of reviewing the URI scheme. In general, I support appropriate use of version numbers in languages and language specifications, especially since documents and file formats have ample opportunities for in-band version indicators. It's unfortunate that URIs, being compact strings, have no place for version indicators. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net -Original Message- From: Robin Berjon [mailto:ro...@berjon.com] Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 4:08 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: public-webapps@w3.org Subject: Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7) Dear Larry, thank you for your comments. On Oct 10, 2009, at 19:44 , Larry Masinter wrote: 7) ** EDITORIAL TITLE ** Widgets 1.0: Widget URIs the 1.0 might imply some kind of versioning, but there is no versioning of URI schemes. Suggestion: retitle Widget URIs I have provisionally made this change. I agree with Marcos that it would be good to do so throughout the widget family of specifications, especially since there is no reason why versions of its various components need to evolve in synchronised fashion - one could use P+C 4.2 with WARP 2.7. Recommendation to the WG: apply the same change throughout. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Access Systems Germany GmbH Essener Strasse 5 | D-46047 Oberhausen HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda www.access-company.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7)
Dear Larry, thank you for your comments. On Oct 10, 2009, at 19:44 , Larry Masinter wrote: 7) ** EDITORIAL TITLE ** Widgets 1.0: Widget URIs the 1.0 might imply some kind of versioning, but there is no versioning of URI schemes. Suggestion: retitle Widget URIs I have provisionally made this change. I agree with Marcos that it would be good to do so throughout the widget family of specifications, especially since there is no reason why versions of its various components need to evolve in synchronised fashion — one could use P+C 4.2 with WARP 2.7. Recommendation to the WG: apply the same change throughout. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
[widgets] The people say NO to 1.0, was Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7)
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote: Dear Larry, thank you for your comments. On Oct 10, 2009, at 19:44 , Larry Masinter wrote: 7) ** EDITORIAL TITLE ** Widgets 1.0: Widget URIs the 1.0 might imply some kind of versioning, but there is no versioning of URI schemes. Suggestion: retitle Widget URIs I have provisionally made this change. I agree with Marcos that it would be good to do so throughout the widget family of specifications, especially since there is no reason why versions of its various components need to evolve in synchronised fashion — one could use P+C 4.2 with WARP 2.7. Recommendation to the WG: apply the same change throughout. I strongly agree (and have been pushing this for a long time)... Lets drop the 1.0 everywhere in the widget family of specs. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
RE: [widgets] The people say NO to 1.0, was Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7)
Hi, Versioning gets revisited :) I agree to the change, since explicit versioning has been deprecated by many. We switch to spec soup with implicit versioning. Thanks, Marcin Marcin Hanclik ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH Tel: +49-208-8290-6452 | Fax: +49-208-8290-6465 Mobile: +49-163-8290-646 E-Mail: marcin.hanc...@access-company.com -Original Message- From: public-webapps-requ...@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-requ...@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:12 PM To: Robin Berjon Cc: Larry Masinter; public-webapps@w3.org Subject: [widgets] The people say NO to 1.0, was Re: [public-webapps] Comment on Widget URI (7) On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote: Dear Larry, thank you for your comments. On Oct 10, 2009, at 19:44 , Larry Masinter wrote: 7) ** EDITORIAL TITLE ** Widgets 1.0: Widget URIs the 1.0 might imply some kind of versioning, but there is no versioning of URI schemes. Suggestion: retitle Widget URIs I have provisionally made this change. I agree with Marcos that it would be good to do so throughout the widget family of specifications, especially since there is no reason why versions of its various components need to evolve in synchronised fashion — one could use P+C 4.2 with WARP 2.7. Recommendation to the WG: apply the same change throughout. I strongly agree (and have been pushing this for a long time)... Lets drop the 1.0 everywhere in the widget family of specs. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au Access Systems Germany GmbH Essener Strasse 5 | D-46047 Oberhausen HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda www.access-company.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited. If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
