On 08/09/2011 21:02, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/8/11 1:28 PM, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 08.09.2011, 18:52 Uhr, schrieb Simen Kjaeraas
<simen.kja...@gmail.com>:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 11:40:01 +0200, Sean Cavanaugh
<worksonmymach...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the COM based land for D3D, there is just a number tacked onto the
class name. We are up to version 11 (e.x. ID3D11Device). It works
well and is definitely nicer once you are used to it, than calling
everything New or FunctionEx, and left wondering what to do when you
rev the interface again
In the case of D3D though, D3D itself has a version number. The next
version
of std.xml will not be parsing XMLv2.0. When a version 2.0 of the XML
spec
shows up, what do we do about std.xml2, which parses version 1.1? And
what
do we call the new one? Should std.xml3 parse XMLv2.0?
That is late in the discussion, but a valid point.
Waiting for a suggestion from the XML experts.
Andrei
I'm not really an XML expert, but I do recall that the XML Core Working
Group shelved there plans to develop "XML2.0". All enhancements that are
in the pipeline are separate projects with their own acronyms.
IMHO, even if there were an XML2.0 spec, I don't think it would effect
the naming of the module in Phobos, because I doubt very much it would
introduce anything that would require a complete rewrite. std.xml2 could
just be extended to support the new features of the spec in the context
of its existing architecture. But it is probably a moot point.
A...
