[Standards] (MIX) - When to increment Namespace

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed Jun 14 11:30:16 UTC 2017

On 14 June 2017 at 08:22, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
> The right thing to do here is clear - the namespace should be bumped. The only justification for not doing this is if we were sure that all implementations of the current version (which I think is just Dave at the moment) and their deployments aren’t going to be inconvenienced by this.

I honestly don't care how many namespaces are around. Roll on mix:42.
These are not software versions, major releases, etc - these are
simple signals of compatibility. I do not care at all about reworking
our implementation to keep pace, either. I do care if we have another
case where our mix:0 implementation suddenly becomes less compatible
because the rug has been pulled from under it.

If people are worried by the idea of mix:42 - and I understand, if not
agree -  then let's make it mix:experiment:42 and then decide later to
move to mix:1.

A sticking point I have, however, is that the specification should
update as needed to match our current consensus - holding back changes
outside of the XSF is problematic, and while one might argue that
"everyone knows" where to find the "real" spec, I would suggest that
this is only true for some novel definitions of "everyone".


More information about the Standards mailing list