- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:23:04 -0000
- To: <dorchard@bea.com>, <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
David Orchard wrote: > Tell me though, is 3.3 compatible with 3.2.1.1? > I would assume they would have to be. I think they'd both have to be backwards compatible within the same ancestry, but maybe 3.2.1.1 has added items not described in 3.3. > I wonder if we could play some magic trick and say that the minor > version is a relative URI from the namespace name, and then the > "match" could be of the strings. A nice use of URIs for comparison imo. that's an interesting idea and maybe could provide scope for some minimal branching if required. The downside is it's not easy to express when branches are merged, e.g. http://example.com/Service/ http://example.com/Service/HttpBinding http://example.com/Service/HttpBinding/deleteOperation http://example.com/Service/HttpBinding/deleteOperation/updateOperation http://example.com/Service/HttpBinding http://example.com/Service/MQBinding/deleteOperation http://example.com/Service/MQBinding/deleteOperation/updateOperaion http://example.com/Service/Http+MQBinding/deleteOperation/updateOperation So i think 'version' should uniquely describe the version of the document within the namespace and something else should describe with which previous versions the interface is backwards compatible with. Also my preference is to not restrict the contents of version or make it an 'integer'. Paul -- Paul Sumner Downey Web Services Integration BT Exact
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 11:23:06 UTC