[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Resolution of Q& R issue - closes Octo ber23d
I generally concur with Dallas' assesment. 1.1 is frozen. Changes should be considered "1.something else". With respect to the 'import' issue, I suggest "1.1.x" might be more appropriate than "1.2" Because.. ...the changes for import are only semantic. The rules for LegalXML message construction remain the same. We are only changing the way we have written those rules. The XML I validate against 1.1.x DTD, is also perfactly valid against the 1.1 DTD. (I think) What was it that we decided in Utah regarding version numbers? "A.B" To my recollection, something like this: A change in A represents major incompatible changes. Prior versions are not compatible with current version. Prior version evaluations and acceptablity tests can not apply to the current version. A change in B implies minor changes. Prior version are compatible with the current version. Prior version evaluations and acceptablity tests only need to be extended for the new version's additional features. So, maybe.. I am suggesting a 'C' portion. ( "A.B.c" ) A change in C implies DTD/Schema syntactic change only. The resulting XML messages do not change content or structure. The current version is compatible with prior version. Prior version evaluations and acceptablity tests are fully applicable to the current version. - Shane -----Original Message----- From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:12 AM To: john@greacen.net; Electronic Court Filing TC Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Resolution of Q& R issue - closes October 23d Currently the Court Filing 1.1 DTD as it stands has a few "place holders" in it. The change of any element definition in Court Filing 1.1 breaks what might be called "a freeze", yet we know that the place holders mean that something is not done. The Court Filing 1.1 DTD by itself does not hinder us from using the Response element at present because the Response element is of type ANY. That means our enhanced response system functions properly based on the Court Filing 1.1 DTD. Adding to or removing from Court Filing 1.1 will break what we have implemented. The reason that I bring this up is because the same issue exists with Digital Signatures. The Court Filing 1.1 DTD has a "place holder" there as well. We evaluated the W3C DSig standard and utilized it as best we could in the Court Filing framework, but Court Filing 1.1 is not complete in this area either. Another area that I fear that still needs consideration are the issues surrounding payment information and how to protect the information properly. I fear that any area that has not been exercised by implementation will remain a "place holder". If we want to strengthen our messages to the Courts then frozen means that it will not change, but we may have to chance what we are telling the courts. If we do not, then confusing messages will begin to go forward as to what Court Filing 1.1 really is. You then have to ask, what version of Court Filing 1.1? I recommend that if you change Court Filing 1.1 to include the enhancements of Q&R you call it Court Filing 1.2, and when we add the enhancements for Digital Signatures we call it Court Filing 1.3 and so forth for modifications to payments. What this tells the courts is that we are not going to confuse them, and that if they don't care about certain features then they can feel comfortable using Court Filing 1.1. Dallas
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC