[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] RE: Version identifier for XRD spec
So, to sum it up, there has been several information points/resonings
available around versions:
(1) Since it is a new spec, it shoud start from 1.0. Otherwise people
start looking for 1.0.
(2) Since there is <XRD version="2.0" xmlns="xri://$xrd*($v*2.0)"> in
XRDS right now.
using 1.0 may confuse people. Perhaps we should use 3.0.
(3) However, if version attribute goes away, this is of less concern.
Version of the schema can be represented in xmlns, and it will be
a new
http based version string possibly starting from 1.0 or dates in
W3C style.
Besides, schema version and spec version can be separate.
(4) OASIS rule mandates the specs to be versioned numerically.
I have a couple of questions at this point.
[Q1] Is the OASIS versioning rule on the spec also applicable to the
schema contained in the spec?
[Q2] Is there a case where we want to preserve "version" attribute
separate from the schema version?
e.g., when verification rule is changed etc., should it always
require the schema version change as well?
If the answer to [Q1] is no, then we can use date based name space in
<XRD ... > and cause
less confusion even if we adopt XRD 1.0. If the answer is "Yes", then I
would be more inclined to "3.0".
For [Q2], I am yet to come up with a case. If any of you could think of
it, please let me know.
=nat
Gabe Wachob wrote:
> Lets call it XRD 7!
>
> -Gabe
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Drummond Reed
> <drummond.reed@cordance.net <mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <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
> <mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net>]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 1:22 AM
> > > To: 'OASIS XRI TC'; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> <mailto: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
> <http://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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Gabe Wachob / gwachob@wachob.com <mailto:gwachob@wachob.com> \
> http://blog.wachob.com
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]