Heiko Oberdiek wrote:
When will we go 2.00 ? when open type is present?
That's the problem with Martin's proposal, I think. * Never. My understanding of Martin is that we would have "2.0" rather than "2.00".
that's a display question, since it's actually version 200, displayed in the banner as 2.0.0 and when first debugged 2.0.1
Thus the confusion about version numbers remains. * We would go to 2.0 after 1.90 (or 1.90.x or 1.9x or 1.9x.y?)^1 regardless of some "main features" or "compatibility changes". We lost a semantics of the "main version number".
2.0.0 == 2.0 == 2 == 200 2.0.1 == 201 2.0.2 == 202 2.1.0 == 2.1 210 15.0.0 == 15.0 == 15 == 1500 15.0.1 == 1501
Sorry Martin, probably I have got a brain damage after reading a lot of specifications (XPath, XSchema, XQuery, ...). I cannot think without a formal grammar specification. ;-(
Xquery is indeed good for brain damage (interesting that those who oppose tex's mix of typesetting and programming state may favor something xquery -) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------