RE: [uddi-spec] Issue u11: UDDI mandates UTF-8

[Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>]

>On the "UDDI V3 as basis for future work" issue, my inner pedant
insists on
>pointing out that the agreement was that any future work was to result
in a
>UDDI V4, rather than an altered V3.
 
OK, so the first issue (which I'm not clear whether we've reached
consensus) is supporting UTF-16, the second is whether this is a spec
change request for v2 or v3, or whether this is a feature request for v4
(do we have a feature request process?)

>While the idea of a V2.1 is initially attractive, it introduces even
more
>testing:

True - but isn't that true of any errata we issue/have issued? For
instance we have at least three 2.0x versions out there - the
differences may be subtle but some may require cross testing!
 
However, the point that introducing it into v2 would have impact on
current implementations is valid. There aren't many live v3
implementations out there yet, so introducing it into v3 should be less
painful if we do it in the near future.
 
Matthew Dovey
Oxford University