W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Review of versioning strategies (ACTION-110)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 20:45:07 -0400
To: "David Orchard" <orchard@pacificspirit.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9B01E20B.2537795A-ON8525744B.00025537-8525744B.0003F1B4@lotus.com>
Very interesting.  XML Version 1.0 (First edition says) [1]:

[22]    prolog   ::=    XMLDecl? Misc* (doctypedecl Misc*)?
[23]    XMLDecl         ::=     '<?xml' VersionInfo EncodingDecl? SDDecl? 
S? '?>'
[24]    VersionInfo     ::=     S 'version' Eq (' VersionNum ' | " 
VersionNum ")
[25]    Eq      ::=     S? '=' S?
[26]    VersionNum      ::=     ([a-zA-Z0-9_.:] | '-')+

My reading is that this was changed between XML 1.0 2nd edition [2] and 
XML 1.0 3rd edition.  That strikes me as raising some very interesting 
version questions in itself.    My comment quoted the text in first 
edition:

[[ “The version number "1.0" should be used to indicate conformance to 
this version of this specification; it is an error for a document to use 
the value "1.0" if
it does not conform to this version of this specification. It is the 
intent of the XML working group to give later versions of this 
specification numbers other than
"1.0", but this intent does not indicate a commitment to produce any 
future  versions of XML, nor if any are produced, to use any particular 
numbering scheme.” 

So, XML 1.0 does  not establish an explicit major/minor scheme.   BTW: the 
regex for XML version identifiers in documents is VersionNum ::= 
([a-zA-Z0-
9_.:] | '-')+  [END QUOTE OF MY COMMENT]]

The text we're discussing here is where your draft said:

"A good example of an incompatible changed identified as a minor change is 
XML 1.1"

First edition explicitly says: 

" this intent does not indicate a commitment to [...] use any particular 
numbering scheme" 

Fourth edition is silent, I think, on the implications of numbers other 
than 1.0, except to say that documents labeled with other numbers do not 
conform to production [26].  Where in any of this do you see justification 
that the change introduced by XML 1.1 is "identified as a minor change"? I 
think you're carrying forward an assumption, which is that when X.Y 
version ids are used, a change only in Y is a "minor" change, but I don't 
see anything in any of the published editions to justify that in the 
particular case of XML 1.0.  I don't think any of them establish a notion 
of major and minor.  The early editions provide a grammar for future 
versions, and explicitly say that no semantics are provided.  The later 
versions withdraw the variable grammar entirely, and require just "1.0" 
(presumably moving to a view that the form of documents beyond 1.0 is 
after all beyond the scope of the 1.0 specification").

In short, I'm still not convinced of your statement that XML 1.1 was 
"identified as a minor change".  I don't see any notion of major and minor 
in the specs, just decimal numbers.  That was the main point of my 
original comment.  Thank you.

Noah



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/



--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Sent by: dorchard100@gmail.com
05/13/2008 08:17 PM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     www-tag@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Review of versioning strategies (ACTION-110)


Noah, thank your for review.  I've done almost all the changes or they 
were overtaken by events.  The one thing that I disagree with you on is 
that XML 1.0 4th edition does say that anything other than 1.0 version is 
an error.  It says
[22] 
prolog
   ::= 
XMLDecl? Misc* (doctypedecl Misc*)?
[23] 
XMLDecl
   ::= 
'<?xml' VersionInfo EncodingDecl? SDDecl? S? '?>'
[24] 
VersionInfo
   ::= 
S 'version' Eq ("'" VersionNum "'" | '"' VersionNum '"')
[25] 
Eq
   ::= 
S? '=' S?
[26] 
VersionNum
   ::= 
'1.0'
 
I'll be posting a new version of the document shortly.
 
Thanks again,
Dave


On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:56 PM, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
I have completed my action to review chapter 2 of Versioning Strategies 
[1], and I've also thrown in a few editorial notes on Chapter 1.  An 
annoted copy is attached as a .pdf.  Thank you. 
Noah 
[1] 
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-compatibility-strategies-20080328.html 



-------------------------------------- 
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation 
One Rogers Street 
Cambridge, MA 02142 
1-617-693-4036 
-------------------------------------- 







Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> 
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org 
04/22/2008 04:03 PM 
  
        To:     www-tag@w3.org 
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) 
        Subject:        Re: Review of versioning strategies (ACTION-110) 

/ Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say: 
| / Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say: 
| | I believe this review completes my ACTION-110. (I wonder if tracker 
| | will notice.) 
| 
| Oh blast. I had the wrong URI squirreled away. Ignore that review, I'll 
| start again with the 28 Mar draft. 
Trying again: 
I believe *this* review completes my ACTION-110. Well done, Dave, I 
think the 28 March draft is much improved. 
See http://a.nnotate.com/php/docnotes.php?d=2008-04-22&c=X1jcEq 
or http://a.nnotate.com/docs/2008-04-22/X1jcEq/index.html 
Apologies (again) for using this review as an opportunity to test 
a.nnotate.com. 
                                        Be seeing you, 
                                          norm 
-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The common excuse of those who bring 
http://nwalsh.com/            | misfortune on others is that they 
                              | desire their good.-- Vauvenargues 


Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 00:44:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:57 GMT