[standards-jig] software version

David Waite mass at akuma.org
Mon Jul 28 22:48:31 UTC 2003


Jeremy Nickurak wrote:

>On Mon, 2003-07-28 at 03:11, Ralph Meijer wrote:
>  
>
>>A namespace is for grouping elements and attributes that belong together.
>>Adding a new element, while not changing the others, in general doesn't
>>break backwards compatibility at all.
>>
>>If you change something to the namespace so that semantics change in a
>>fundamental way or documents that used to conform are now illegal, /that/
>>would be a reason to use another namespace.
>>    
>>
>
>Who decides what change constitutes a "fundamental" change?
>
The owner of a JEP, I would say. For an informational JEP, I would say 
the author. For a standards-track JEP, I'd vote the standards-jig as a 
whole. In either case, the changes should be re-approved by the council.

>Consider a hypothetical jabber client that, for purposes of (admitidly
>short-sighted) optimization, sorts incoming packets into groups based on
>the unique keys 'p' 'm' and 'i', derived from the first character of the
>packet's root tag, "message", "iq" or "presence". The introduction of
>another tag, say, "peer2peer", would throw these older implementations
>for a loop.
>
>Is it a slightly contrived example? Sure. All i'm saying is that
>limiting yourself to only adding new elements *does not* save you from
>breaking older implementations.
>
Implementations that improperly implement a spec should not be worked 
around for standards-track JEPs. Of course the author of an 
informational JEP can do what they wish, since they are just documenting 
'the way things are' - informational JEPs (at least should) describe 
existing systems, so this change supposedly already happened.

-David Waite

>
>  
>
>>The jury is not out on this and there has been a lot of discussion. See
>>for example this document:
>>http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-tipnamsp.html.
>>    
>>
>
>I'll have to read through this later, as i'm getting late for work.
>Thanks for the pointer.
>
>  
>





More information about the Standards mailing list