Semantic backwards compatibility Re: [ubl] VS: Documentstatus

["Stephen Green" <stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk>]

I would like to express much concern that there what I believe to be
a misunderstanding that a major release allows us to break *semantic*
backwards compatibility. We SHOULD NOT (rfc sense) break * semantic *
backwards compatibility, even in a major release. It is a major release
because we might break schema backwards compatibility (and even that
should be avoided). I think we realise that we are likely to have a few minor
compatibility problems where we HAVE to change things such as if required
to do so because of codelist changes but even there we should try to avoid
it if possible.

All the best

Steve

>>> Peter Larsen Borresen <plb@itst.dk> 26/10/05 14:51:36 >>>




Hi stephen

There will be no information lost if it allways is in state original. My
opinion is that we shoul corect errors because this is a major release. I
would like people to yell if they have a need for it, otherwise UBL will be
a long list of legacy errors.

/Peter

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Stephen Green [mailto:stephen_green@bristol-city.gov.uk] 
Sendt: 26. oktober 2005 15:11
Til: Peter Larsen Borresen
Emne: Re: Documentstatus


Peter

We'd need to keep this now for backwards compatibility
but the original decison was a TC one at a plenary (several years
ago in Montreal). There may be issues too with alignment with
EDIFACT, etc. 

Steve

>>> Peter Larsen Borresen <plb@itst.dk> 26/10/05 12:27:17 >>>
Hi stephen

What is the idea of putting documentStatus in recieptLine and despatchLine.
Should not document status be used only in the documents that can be
updated, such as the order docuements?

/Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php