[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: oBIX Artifact Naming and Titling...
|
Advice needed, requested after considerable discussion in oBIX TC. (This might be a Paul Knight question) oBIX 1.0 is an omnibus specification. In 1.1 we are breaking out two bindings, (SOAP and REST), and Encodings (XML, JSON, COAP, et al.) We anticipate that a Conforming 1.1 Server MUST specify which Bindings, Encodings it supports. We anticipate
that at a future time, a new encodings document could be made, or a new binding, without creating a 1.2. Conversely, we can imagine oBIX 1.2 coming out and referencing the Binding/Encoding documents we are working on today. As a matter of work process, the current WDs of each specification are essentially stripped out of the old 1.0. Each spec is currently being modified as needed. We anticipate releasing a package of 4 specifications (oBIX 1.1, SOAP Binding
for oBIX, REST Binding for oBIX, Encodings for oBIX) in the same public review. There was a spirited discussion today about avoiding confusion. Should they all be 1.1 of the Spec, because they all existed formerly as part of 1.0? Should they have longer titles, i.e.,
·
“SOAP Bindings for oBIX 1.1 and above, v1.0”
·
“SOAP Bindings for oBIX 1.1, v1.0” Of course, the answer could also be
·
“SOAP Bindings for oBIX 1.1 and above, v1.1”
·
“SOAP Bindings for oBIX 1.1, v1.1” With each document noting that the original material was all included in 1.0. We are looking for advice on how to avoid as much confusion as possible while still allowing for flexibility going forward. Thanks tc "You can cut all the flowers but you cannot keep spring from coming."
-Pablo Neruda
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]