W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > August 2004

Re: XML Extensibility and versioning

From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:44:28 -0400
To: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF38056F1F.4254721E-ON85256EEB.00550DA4@lotus.com>

First, I wrote:
>>Ideally, a WG would issue a versioning plan along with (or incorporated
>>into) their first working draft of their version 1.0, so that
>>interested parties can comment on the adequacy of the plan at an early
>>enough stage. However, the WG may not follow that plan in the future,
>>and the TAG or some other representative of pan-WG wisdom may change
>>the versioning technology or policy before 2.0 comes out. Therefore, I
>>think its hard for SpecGL to get very specific about versioning.

Then, Lofton replied:
>"Pubrules" has apparently already reserved the topic of versioning for 
>itself.  See [a section about when to alter major version numbers, just
>the minor version number, or neither for a later "edition" of a spec]

That's orthogonal to what I am advocating. I was suggesting that the WG
issuing a draft (ideally, the first draft) of XFoo 1.0 should state
their plan for forward compatibility and how the next version will be
distinguished from 1.0, whether that next version turns out to be 1.1 or
2.0. This will start the discussion about forward/backward compatibility
at an appropriately early stage. This advocacy is harmonious with what
the TAG will probably say: anticipate that there *will* be future
versions; plan for them right from the start. In this thread, there are
questions about how far SpecGL should go in supporting such planning
ahead. At the heavy end, SpecGL would say that a spec should/must say
something about version markers, forward compatibility, and maybe even
the konds of changes that would constitute a "major" version change. (I
left out backward compatibility because the version marker is presumed
to be the hook that will be used by later versions to choose backward
compatible operation.)
.................David Marston
Received on Monday, 9 August 2004 15:45:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:35 UTC