- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:26:52 -0500
- To: "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@sun.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Seems obvious but I may misunderstand you. For a schema to force a version number to exist or not exist, it must exist. On the other hand, the document doesn't really care about that; the author has to. So I don't know exactly what it solves architecturally. What becomes a problem is is that meaningful given a document that includes multiple namespaces? I don't really have a good idea for documents like that because the versioning of the primary document may no relationship to the versions of the ones included by namespace. That seems to be a thicket and a nightmare. Well... I guess one could include schematron assertions for coordinating version values as that is a sort of co-occurrence constraint. We had this discussion on XML-Dev at least twice and after some time, there was no consensus, but my own conclusion was near to what you suggest: use a version attribute. It had the disadvantage of having to open and inspect the document, but oh well. It still doesn't do anything for the multiply namespaced version unless those carry their own version attributes. Ugly. Again, it's like versioning a view instead of the query that creates it. Essentially, what does "version" mean and when should it be a property? What does version mean to identity? Is it the same as "representation"? If the worms are still in the can, you can dream of going fishing. Once you open them, you have to fish or cut bait. :-) len -----Original Message----- From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@sun.com] / "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> was heard to say: | Isn't that going to lead back to the potential of | having a document with multiple namespaces but no | normative schema? How so? | That's a can of worms. Versioning is a can of worms. But what good is a can of worms if you never open it? :-)
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 16:27:30 UTC