RE: [ws-rx-editors] Scope of namespace change policy (was RE: [ws-rx-editors] WDs for 1/5)

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

Chris had submitted a proposal for namespace policy for the TC (as
pointed out by Anish below) before the Sept F2F. I don't think there was
a formal acceptance since the proposal was not part of any issue
resolution as such. However, since there were no objections or further
discussion on Chris's proposal, it seemed that the policy was
acceptable. Would any body like to raise an explicit issue at this point
of time?

Personally, I agree with Gil that WDs should not be as such required to
consider the namespace changes. CD (and definitely CS) would be good
points for reviewing backward compatibility and any resulting namespace
changes, etc.

Thanks,
Sanjay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, Jan 05, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: Anish Karmarkar; Marc Goodner
> Cc: ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx-editors] Scope of namespace change policy 
> (was RE: [ws-rx-editors] WDs for 1/5)
> 
> I don't remember the subject of the scope of the namespace 
> change policy
> ever coming up. I had assumed that it applied only to 
> approved Committee
> Specifications and OASIS Standards. I can see the case for applying it
> to Committee Drafts but I would really have to push back against the
> idea of applying it to Working Drafts. It just makes more work for the
> editors and working drafts never make any kind of "real" promises to
> implementers in the first place (that's why we have working drafts. I
> invite the chairs to comment . . .
> 
> - g  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:36 AM
> > To: Marc Goodner
> > Cc: Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [ws-rx-editors] WDs for 1/5
> > 
> > Marc,
> > 
> > Some time back Chris/Paul had taken an action to propose a 
> > namespace change policy [1]. Which I *think* was something 
> > along the lines of: 
> > change the NS only if there is a backward incompatible change.
> > But this applies only to Committee specs.
> > 
> > I don't recall, if the TC accepted the proposal or not.
> > 
> > Were there any incompatible changes made? Offhand, I can't 
> > think of any.
> > 
> > -Anish
> > --
> > 
> > [1]
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archi
> > ves/200509/msg00189.html
> > 
> > Marc Goodner wrote:
> > > Shouldn't the namespace be updated?
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > 
> > > *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:13 PM
> > > *To:* ws-rx-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > *Subject:* [ws-rx-editors] WDs for 1/5
> > > *Importance:* High
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > Attached are the PDF's for wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-08 and 
> > wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-03. 
> > > Please give them a look over. If I don't hear from anyone 
> > before noon 
> > > tomorrow I will publish them to the main TC pages at that 
> > time. Sorry 
> > > for the short review period, but we effectively promised 
> > the TC they 
> > > would have something to review by the middle of this week.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > - g
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > 
>