From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Mar 03 2005 - 12:30:47 CST
-On [20050302 05:22], Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>"Stability" in a standard does not mean that the standard never changes.
>It means that, as much as possible, it does not change in a way that
>causes existing implementations or data to break.
I hope I am not asking a FAQ here, but what about major release numbers?
Say from 3.x to 4.x, does that allow the Unicode standard to break
compatibility in some ways?
Because, working too much on ABI/API versioning, I know that if you don't
clean up completely every once in a while the entirety of backwards
compatibility might sound nice from a certain perspective it will also be a
ball and chain grinding you to a slow and painful halt where discussion
about backwards compatibility will be the brunt of the discussion instead of
getting a lean technology standard.
-- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono Free Tibet! http://www.savetibet.org/ | http://ashemedai.deviantart.com/ http://www.tendra.org/ | http://www.in-nomine.org/ Now twilight hides the clear, and haunts the day away, we cross the last frontier and it sets our hearts ablaze...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 12:35:36 CST