W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2004

RE: XML Extensibility and versioning

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:01:40 -0700
Message-ID: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D1030DC9C4@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Al Gilman" <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Cc: Dominique HazaŽl-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 HazaŽl-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 HazaŽl-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 HazaŽl-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 HazaŽl-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
> >	numťriquement signťe.
> >
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 20:02:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:04 UTC