[deletia] > -> Upon failure of envelope version support, there should be a consistent > error indicating so. This then > leads to the question of "what version of envelope should that error be > contained in?" The following > question surfaces: "What versions do you support?". I agree - the failure models for basic XP features should be normative. [deletia] > "............The specification must define the concepts of backwards > compatible and backwards incompatible > evolution through a consistent mechanism over time that encompasses > incompatable version detection > and discovery of supported XP versions." We particularly wished to avoid the used of the word 'version' in the text because it was seen by many as a solution to the problem of compatibility rather than as a requirement. As it stands, the text says - 'we have to be able to do this, but we don't care how'. The next step is to say 'we do it using versioning, in this particular fashion'. cheers --oh -- ohurley ta iona tod com +353 1 637 2639Received on Thursday, 11 January 2001 08:31:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT