Versioning

[Guy Rixon]

On 2 Jul 2009, at 18:56, Matthew Graham wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There is no change from Strasbourg: the integer progression is  
> required for versions which are not compatible. Namespaces change  
> between versions and so a client for one version cannot  
> automatically be used for the next version as the namespace of the  
> XML message would be incorrect ergo the version integer has to  
> change to reflect this.
>
> It was a major concession to get VOSpace 1.1 remain that and not get  
> called VOSpace 2.0.

Well VOSpace 1.1, as it came out, should have been v2 under these  
rules and we would have numbered it so if we'd had more notice.

I think I agree with Doug's interpretation here. The various issues of  
the standard for WD, PR, .. are VOSpace-2.0-20090801,  
VOSpace-2.0-20090901 etc. or whatever dates transpire. And maybe the  
namespace URI for the final schema out to have the date in it, too.

I vote for rejecting this change until the exec clarifies the intent.

Cheers,
Guy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20090702/ef26aee2/attachment-0005.html>