[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Daniel Barclay <Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:57:43 -0500
David Megginson wrote:
>
> Elliotte Rusty Harold writes:
> > At 4:23 PM -0400 10/25/00, David Megginson wrote:
> > >I've put a list of known SAX2/Java bugs at
> > >
> > > http://www.megginson.com/SAX/bugs.html
> > >
> >
> > There only seems to be one bug there and it's an implementation bug
> > in a helper class, not an API bug. Consequently I'd like to suggest
> > that you not call the new release SAX 2.0.1 since that implies (to
> > me, at least) that the API has changed. That is, SAX means the
> > general API, not a specific implementation of the API. Maybe SAX2
> > second edition or SAX2 1.0.1 would make the distinction a tad
> > clearer? But the real issue here is distinguishing between a new
> > release of the implementation and a new release of the API.
>
> An excellent point. Any other version-numbering suggestions?
You might look at Sun's Java package versioning system. It separates
versioning of the specification of some API from versioning of
implementations of that specification.
Daniel
--
Daniel Barclay
Digital Focus
Daniel.Barclay@digitalfocus.com
|
