Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Sorry Len, this is a bit criptic for me (except the last part :-). I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or Ken or neither of us ?. Later on in this note I am also trying to assert that there is a difference between a minor (non breaking) and a major (explicitly breaking) change and that a vocabulary that provides no extensibility mechanism (for non schema authors as well as schema owners) won't be flexible and fast moving enough for business agility (I hate that term - but its late so it will suffice). If it comes to a choice, the sacrosanct that Ken is talking about with UBL will be sacrificed in a heart-beat. I'm not saying thats right, I just saying, thats reality. So IMO we need to work extra hard to avoid that condition appearing and if that means compromising (slightly) and not being a slave to a difficult spec and a slow moving change process (show me a standards effort that isn't !), then so be it. I have tried (v.hard) at advocating the purview line and, as I'm sure you are well aware it is a tough sell in the face of [short term] business delivery demands. Do you have a view on this (silly question :-) Fraser. >From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...> >To: 'Fraser Goffin' <goffinf@h...>, gkholman@C..., >xml-dev@l... >Subject: RE: Versioning of Enums >Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:22:36 -0600 > >A version-controlled namespace tactic that disallows minor >changes without version number changes explicitly disallows >the use of the standard channel to create a tipping point >advantage covertly. This favors the strategy of openness >and transparency of transactions and these in turn, >simplify auditability. > >If in search of signal, I understand markup markets. >Cheating in markup is like [expletive deleted] in the party punch. >Other bowls are provided for that: namespace URNs. >If the pun escapes you, say it out loud. > >len (ogee, mr grodzins!) > > >From: Fraser Goffin [mailto:goffinf@h...] > >I admit to being in the camp that says the addition of a new value to an >enum does NOT warrant a new schema namespace (subject to the usual caveats >about semantic coherence) ?
|
