As
I started to write the conformance language for
Section 17 based on our discussion from yesterday, I
talked myself into a corner on this. I’d appreciate
some input from those familiar with OASIS rules about
conformance, etc. and how they like things done.
I
think our desire is:
·
for 1.1 and greater, the models, encodings, and
bindings sections of the Lobby are REQUIRED
·
for 1.0, they are obviously not required, as no
1.0 server would ever have them
·
a 1.1 client should be able to handle the
absence of these properties when talking to a 1.0
server
·
we want to maintain the backwards compatibility
So
is the way to do this:
a) make
the properties have ‘null=”true” ‘ in the schema for
the contract? Or
b) make
the properties not be null – thus indicating they are
required – but include a statement in the spec that
clients must be able to handle the nonexistence of the
properties?
I
think we’ve been following a) so far, but perhaps b)
makes better sense? Because we DON’T want to suggest
that a person implementing a 1.1 server can just
decide not to have the properties, that defeats the
purpose of having them! My thought would be to take
the null default off of the properties, and add
language to Section 5 about the new properties, saying
that clients should expect to handle them not being
there for backwards compatibility. Also probably put
something into 17 somewhere that clients must be able
to handle nonexistence of newer properties for this
reason.
Any
suggestions?
Thanks,
Craig