W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xkms@w3.org > March 2002

Re: versioning...

From: Frederick J. Hirsch <fjh@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 10:28:37 -0500
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "'stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie'" <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>, <www-xkms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8AB9FD5.2E9D%fjh@alum.mit.edu>
Couldn't the uri be defined to offer ordering e.g.
http://www.foo.org/xkms/1.2.1?

(This would require defining the format of URIs for that specific purpose)

< Frederick
fjh@fjhirsch.com


> From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>
> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:46:49 -0800
> To: "'stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie'" <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>,
> www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: RE: versioning...
> Resent-From: www-xkms@w3.org
> Resent-Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:46:09 -0500 (EST)
> 
> I was just writing a post on this exact topic. Actually, SAML is still using
> Major and Minor version numbers.
> 
> The argument goes:
> 
> Using URIs as version identifiers does not provide sufficient information to
> an application. In particular there is no ordering defined on URIs.
> 
> So it is not possible to use the URI alone to obtain the information one
> traditionally requires from a version number scheme, i.e.
> 
> Major version of request is higher than that supported
> Indicates a protocol incompatibility
> 
> Minor version of request is higher than that supported
> Indicates that the request is supported but a software update might
> be advisable.
> 
> etc. etc.
> 
> 
> I do not think that we get enough out of the URI alone so yes, I think we
> should keep the major/minor version tags.
> 
> 
> Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
> Principal Scientist
> VeriSign Inc.
> pbaker@verisign.com
> 781 245 6996 x227
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:34 PM
>> To: www-xkms@w3.org
>> Subject: versioning...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> (Since there's not been discussion on Joeseph's issues/proposal
>> mail, I'm starting threads on each of his issues in the hope
>> that that'll be easier for folks to process. If I feel like it,
>> I'll also say what I think.)
>> 
>> Joseph wondered:
>>> Why do we need required Major and Minor versions? Please use
>>> namespace/URIs. (Is the Minor/MajorVersion somehow define
>> the semantic of 
>>> the "Success" if it changed between versions?)
>> 
>> And I tend to agree. I suspect that this was something in common
>> with the SAML specification, but since SAML's changed to use
>> URIs and its the right thing to do anyway (at least IMHO), I'd
>> be for changing.
>> 
>> Stephen.
>> 
>> -- 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> Stephen Farrell             
>> Baltimore Technologies,   tel: (direct line) +353 1 881 6716
>> 39 Parkgate Street,                     fax: +353 1 881 7000
>> Dublin 8.                mailto:stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
>> Ireland                             http://www.baltimore.com
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 10:19:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:31:38 UTC