- From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:01:40 -0700
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
- Cc: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Due to an error on my part, XML.com did not get the final version of the article. The final version is available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnexxml/html/xml07212004.asp A description of the differences between both articles is at http://blogs.msdn.com/dareobasanjo/archive/2004/07/28/200264.aspx -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM You can't expect a person to see eye to eye if you look down on them. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of David Orchard > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:29 PM > To: Al Gilman; www-tag@w3.org > Cc: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux > Subject: RE: XML Extensibility and versioning > > > Hi Al, > > I've recently been appointed an editor of the finding on TAG > issue 41. I'm also the author of the article that is > extensively referenced in the article you refer to. The > original TAG finding did have material on using XML Schema to > enable compatible evolution, but this was expunged late last > year from the general TAG finding. I don't know of any > reason why we won't be producing a finding on using various > schema languages and techniques to achieve evolution. > > I plan on incorporating the article's observations as much as > possible in said TAG finding. I particularly like the use of > the delimiter technique for enabling compatible schema > evolution, in many cases it's cleaner than the extension > element technique I came up with. I'm less sure of the rules > around when to use multiple namespaces for versioning. > > I'm very interested in your experience with the various > aspects of extensibility that are outlined in my xml.com > article, Dare's xml.com article, and the TAG finding. > > Cheers, > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Al Gilman > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:46 AM > To: www-tag@w3.org > Cc: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux > Subject: Fwd: XML Extensibility and versioning > > > Does this relate to the XMLVersioning-41 issue? > > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#XMLVersioning-41 > > Al > > >From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org> > >To: www-qa@w3.org > >Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:18:29 +0200 > >Subject: XML Extensibility and versioning > >X-Archived-At: > >http://www.w3.org/mid/1090509509.4569.1778.camel@stratustier > > > >XML.com published an article from Dare Obasanjo [1] yesterday, about > >XML Extensibility and Versioning; I've only skimmed through > it, but it > >seems to touch on several of the points that SpecGL tries to > address in > >extension and deprecation applied to the specific case of > XML languages. > > > >It would be great if someone had the time to look further on whether > >some of the points in the article should inspire new good > practices or > >techniques in SpecGL; I may end up doing it next week, but > would love > >to see contributions from others :) > > > >Dom > > > >1. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/07/21/design.html > >-- > >Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM > >mailto:dom@w3.org > > > > > >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc > >Content-Description: Ceci est une partie de message > > numériquement signée. > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 20:02:08 UTC