RE: Comment on Evolution of XML protocol requirements

>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

Thats fine with me.

Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



"Oisin Hurley" <ohurley@iona.com>@w3.org on 01/11/2001 06:25:12 AM

Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org


To:   <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
cc:
Subject:  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 08:35:32 UTC