earlier replies
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov probably never because versioning an API is a reasonable thing to do.
4
@bitworking "probably never because versioning an API is a reasonable thing to do" +1 /cc @stilkov
1
1
@sallamar Interesting, wouldn't have expected that you agree
2
@stilkov maybe defining what "versioning" is supposed to mean would help. a breaking change (new #URI ok) or a feature-adding extension?
1
@dret @bitworking @stilkov actually the markup web that we like apps to mimic has been doing in place tweaks and new URIs just fine.
1
@sallamar @bitworking @stilkov in-place tweaks for feature-adding HTML upgrades, and new URIs for shiny new media types, right?
1
@dret no. I mean new Uris for "my new v2 site", not media types. The web is what it is today for its interop. We mustn't forget that.
3
@sallamar i see many sites successfully trying to not break bookmarks, and i like that. it makes clients/users happier, if it can be done.
1
@dret right. That's why I respectfully disagree with the mint-me-a-media-type movement. /@bitworking @stilkov
2
1
@sallamar @dret @stilkov +1, I disagree with trying to do versioning in the media-type, or in any header.
1
Replying to @bitworking
@bitworking @sallamar @dret I too dislike versioning in media types, but not as much as breaking every URI when a major version changes

Dec 8, 2012 · 11:27 PM UTC

1
1
Replying to @stilkov
@stilkov IMO, major vs minor isn't the right approach. compat (same uri) vs incompat (diff uri) is more sensible. /@bitworking @dret
1
2