I realized my reference to WG might be confusing here: while I was trying to write signature instances and DTDs/schemas for the Signature WG, the Schema WG had updated their DTD while using the same namespace, causing previously working instance I had written to fail. But now things are much clearer as expectations about the stability of a namespace are explicit [1]. In the working draft stage, a WG should state how likely a given namespace is to chage, and once a spec hits CR, the namespace must be stable with respect to any affects it has on previously conforming instances and processors. Joseph wrote before: >A dated (or versioned, or RFC allocated) specification has a specific and >frozen meaning. Prior to clarification of W3C's policies, I had written >instances using schema that were valid at a given time for a given >namespace. The WG then changed the DTD behind that namespace invalidating >the examples I wrote that used to work! My examples should've continued to >be valid under that namespace, and they should've created a new one. [1] http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri __ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 00:28:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:12 GMT