RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: XML Namespace URIs

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

It seems that Chris' objection to "simple version numbers" in the
namespace URIs lies in the potential for people to assume that the
version of the namespace must proceed in lockstep with the version of
the spec (actually the W3C seems to require this:
http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri). Since we intend to include a "URI
namespace policy statement" in the specs that explicitly rejects this
assumption, I think we should be fine with "simple version numbers".

- g

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@datapower.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:46 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: XML Namespace URIs

>  Chris indicated to the editors earlier that he preferred to use a 
> date stamp to indicate version. You'll have to ask him about his 
> reasons for this preference. I don't care one way or another.

I care.  Date-based version numbers have no explicit interop semantics.
There's a long history of major/minor semantics.  Cf SAML 1.0, 1.1, and
2.0

        /r$

-- 
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html