Re: [ebxml-cppa] Question about versioning and ebXML CPPA TechnicalCommittee Teleconference April 5 Minutes and Notes

[Tony Weida <rweida@hotmail.com>]

That's a good point.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Wenzel" <pete@seebeyond.com>
To: <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] Question about versioning and ebXML CPPA Technical
Committee Teleconference April 5 Minutes and Notes


> I would favor numbering it 2.0 now (when first subjected to public
> scrutiny), indicating that it is significantly different from 1.x.  If
> a 2.01 results after feedback, that would help alleviate the ".0
> syndrome", reassuring users that the bugs have already been worked
> out.
>
> --Pete
> Pete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com>
> SeeBeyond
> Standards & Product Strategy
> +1-626-471-6092 (US-Pacific)
>
> Thus spoke Tony Weida (rweida@hotmail.com) on Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at
04:01:14PM -0500:
> > To make identification simple and clear for end users, I feel that the
> > OASIS-approved version should be labelled 2.0.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tony
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>
> > To: "Cppa (E-mail)" <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 3:04 PM
> > Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Question about versioning and ebXML CPPA Technical
> > Committee Teleconference April 5 Minutes and Notes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Here are the minutes for today's
> > teleconference, and a question...
> >
> > An announcement concerning the pending Oasis
> > ebXML CPPA TC vote for
> > approval of CPPA version 2
> > has been posted to the
> > web site Announcement section.
> >
> > Does anyone have any thoughts about how the version
> > numbers should be handled? We plan for the successor
> > to 1.11 to be the actual text voted upon. Should it
> > be called 2.0? Should all the schemas be so versioned?
> >
> > There is a good chance that after the initial public
> > review, but before deciding whether to submit the specification
> > for Oasis approval, we will incorporate changes that
> > implementation experience, TC scrutiny, or public comment
> > make advisable. So that would be 2.01 or something. Is
> > anyone troubled by this possibility? Should we name
> > the TC version 1.99 to avoid this?
> >
> > Not a big deal, but I would like to know what the
> > consenus of the group is.
> >
> > Please examine the minutes carefully and send additions or
> > corrections to me and/or the list.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dale Moberg
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>