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

RE: versioning...

From: Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:11:28 -0800
Message-ID: <AA19CFCE90F52E4B942B27D42349637902CDCF2D@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@verisign.com>, "Frederick J. Hirsch" <fjh@alum.mit.edu>, <stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie>, <www-xkms@w3.org>
While I agree with the value of versioning, I don't see how handling
this via an XML structure we define is fundamentally better than
encoding it in a URI based on an approach we define.  Either way, an
XKMS implementor needs to embed knowledge of the versioning scheme.

I also submit that URIs are already used for versioning.  Look at
XMLSchema.  We have a bunch of schemas that where built to the Sept 2000
Schema spec and also a bunch to the 2001 spec.  If you start mixing
these you run into all kinds of problems.  Tools generally do version
filtering based on the XMLSchema namespace URI.

Blair

-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:43 AM
To: 'Frederick J. Hirsch'; Hallam-Baker, Phillip;
'stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie'; www-xkms@w3.org
Subject: RE: versioning...



Then we end up with a private syntax within XML/URI schemes which is
very bad.

It is generally accepted in the protocol community that there is a need
to support version numbers, in fact it is one of the cannonical faults
that first run protocols make, look at the kludge that Tim got into with
HTTP!

It is also generally accepted that a protocol needs to alert a responder
to three possible cases, the same protocol being used, a compatible
enhanced protocol being used, an incompatible protocol being used.


	Phill


Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick J. Hirsch [mailto:fjh@alum.mit.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:29 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; 'stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie'; 
> www-xkms@w3.org
> Subject: Re: versioning...
> 
> 
> 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 18:12:29 UTC

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