[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] RE: Version identifier for XRD spec
Mary McRae, our TC admin, clarified that OASIS specs must use a numeric
version identifier (see thread below).
So, mates, now we really do have to decide between "XRD 1.0" and "XRD 3.0".
A suggestion: if, as we discussed on Thursday's call, the new XRD spec will
no longer have a "ver" attribute on the XRD element, then the issue of the
previous version attribute value being "2.0" (as specified in XRI Resolution
2.0) will go away. In that case I think it makes sense to call the spec "XRD
1.0" because as Eran pointed out, there's never been a spec from the TC
called "XRD" before.
OTOH, if the decision is that the ver attribute on XRD element should stay,
then I think it makes sense to call the spec "XRD 3.0" because it really is
the next version of XRD. We can always put a note in the frontmatter telling
readers not to look for an "XRD 2.0" or "XRD 1.0" spec, but instead to look
at "XRI Resolution 2.0" and "XRI 1.0" for the predecessor specifications.
All things being equal (which they never are ;-), I favor planning for
future growth and extensibility, which means I favor keeping the versioning
attribute, which tips me ever so slightly towards "XRD 3.0". (Which is
ironic because I prefer the spec name "XRD 1.0" because it's a new spec.)
I don't think the issue is worth taking a bunch of list bandwidth to figure
out, so I'd recommend that:
a) Anyone else on the list with strong feelings either way, please post your
thoughts by Monday.
b) Eran and Nat as the editors discuss it and make a recommendation.
=Drummond
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 5:23 AM
> To: 'Drummond Reed'
> Subject: RE: Version identifier for XRD spec
>
> You found the right (and required) answer ;-)
>
> Mary
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 1:22 AM
> > To: 'OASIS XRI TC'; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Version identifier for XRD spec
> >
> > Mary,
> >
> > From today's XRI TC call I had an action item to send you and the TC
> > list an
> > email asking about OASIS spec naming guidelines. Based on the helpful
> > info
> > about spec packaging you gave us two weeks ago, the TC is currently
> > planning
> > two new specs, both of which we intend to take to OASIS Standard level:
> > XRI
> > 3.0 and XRD xxx (xxx = version identifier TBD).
> >
> > XRI 3.0 will consist of four parts (1: Syntax, 2: Resolution, 3: http:
> > and
> > https: Bindings, and 4: info: Binding). XRD will probably be a single
> > spec,
> > though it might be two parts.
> >
> > Now, the question is about versioning on the XRD spec. This is a new
> > spec
> > that represents splitting off a significant portion of the content of
> > the
> > XRI Resolution 2.0 spec into a new spec that defines a generic metadata
> > discovery format and protocol which the new XRI 3.0 Part 2: Resolution
> > spec
> > will then profile (as will other specs, e.g. SAML, OpenID, OAuth, etc.
> > who
> > want to use interoperable discovery).
> >
> > Our first question is: does an OASIS spec need to use a numeric version
> > identifier? In researching this tonight, I believe the answer is at:
> >
> >
> > http://docs.oasis-
> > open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/metadata.html#ver
> > sion
> >
> > ...which states:
> >
> > *******************
> > A specification Version is represented textually by a numeric string
> > composed of digits [0-9] and period (".") corresponding to any of the
> > following lexical models provided below (as examples), as may be
> > relevant to
> > the TC's work activity and preference for major/minor version notation.
> > Formally, using parenthesis to indicate optionality and "#" to
> > represent a
> > digit, the allowable pattern is: #(#).#(#)(.#(#)). Use of any other
> > pattern
> > for version number must be negotiated with the TC Administration.
> >
> > Examples:
> >
> > 1.0 #.#
> > 1.01 #.##
> > 1.2.1 #.#.#
> > 10.1 ##.#
> > ********************
> >
> > If so, that answers the question, and we just need to decide what
> > version
> > number to give it (in short: one rationale is to call it 1.0 because it
> > is a
> > new spec; another is to call it 3.0 because it derives from two
> > generations
> > of XRDS before it -- but that's our issue to figure out).
> >
> > However, if we do have any flexibility, we want to at least ask you
> > about
> > using a year/date identifier instead of a version number.
> >
> > Thanks in advance. (BTW, I'm thinking of setting up a call in early
> > December
> > between you and the editors of these new specs to a general Q&A about
> > all
> > things involved with the mechanics of an OASIS spec. Sound like a good
> > idea?)
> >
> > =Drummond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]