[standards-jig] software version
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.
>>The jury is not out on this and there has been a lot of discussion. See
>>for example this document:
>I'll have to read through this later, as i'm getting late for work.
>Thanks for the pointer.
More information about the Standards