RE: Comment on Evolution of XML protocol requirements

[deletia]
> -> Upon failure of envelope version support, there should be a consistent
> error indicating so. This then
> leads to the question of "what version of envelope should that error be
> contained in?" The following
> question surfaces: "What versions do you support?".

I agree - the failure models for basic XP features should be normative.
 
[deletia]
> "............The specification must define the concepts of backwards
> compatible and backwards incompatible
> evolution through a consistent mechanism over time that encompasses
> incompatable version detection
> and discovery of supported XP versions."

We particularly wished to avoid the used of the word 'version' in the
text because it was seen by many as a solution to the problem of 
compatibility rather than as a requirement. As it stands, the text
says - 'we have to be able to do this, but we don't care how'. The
next step is to say 'we do it using versioning, in this particular
fashion'. 

 cheers
   --oh

--
ohurley ta iona tod com
+353 1 637 2639 

Received on Thursday, 11 January 2001 08:31:04 UTC