[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Versioning of Enums

• To: len.bullard@i..., gkholman@C..., xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Versioning of Enums
• From: "Fraser Goffin" <goffinf@h...>
• Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:44:09 +0000
• Bcc:
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FE78@h...>

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) ?

• References:
  • RE: Versioning of Enums
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Versioning of Enums
• Next by Date: Markup Farming (WAS RE: Versioning of Enums)
• Previous by thread: RE: Versioning of Enums
• Next by thread: Extreme Markup Languages 2006 - Call for Participation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread