• From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 11:34:39 +0100

2009/4/22 Michael Kay <mike@s...>:
>> I concur with Michael's observation, but I don't think a
>> version attribute alone is sufficient for good versioning.
>
> It's not enough on its own, but it gets you a long way, provided of course
> that the value of the attribute is not just an opaque string but a pointer
> to a set of rules that define the contract between sender and recipient
> associated with that version.

For an alternative opinion on versioning, see Robin Berjon's posts in
this thread:

http://markmail.org/message/fmg75xevxdo4hunv

"Personally, I would recommend that we don't :) Version identifiers
are largely useless and experience shows that users use them wrong
(e.g. a bunch of SVG out there that's labelled as 1.1 is really 1.2,
but people just copy-paste the root element). "

...and suggests more further down the thread:

http://markmail.org/message/fmg75xevxdo4hunv




-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Changing Namespaces Between Specification Versions (was: XIN: XML implicit namespace definitions)
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>

• References:
  • Changing Namespaces Between Specification Versions (was: XIN: XML implicit namespace definitions)
    • From: "Paul Spencer" <xml-dev-list@b...>
  • RE: Changing Namespaces Between Specification Versions (was: XIN: XML implicit namespace definitions)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Changing Namespaces Between Specification Versions (was: XIN: XML implicit namespace definitions)
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • RE: Changing Namespaces Between Specification Versions (was: XIN: XML implicit namespace definitions)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>