VOEvent v2.0 is ready for prime time

[Rob Seaman]

Hi Rick,

> The "uri" attribute is fine.
> 
> Leaving things as they orginally were means
> 
> 	- having a useless "name" attribute;
> 	- having a "type" attribute commonly used for thousands of other things and hence a mess for practical-minded people like Roy.
> 
> That's why I'm arguing to drop "name" and change the name of "type" to something more specific and hopefully content-controllable.

So your suggestion is:

	deprecate (or ignore) type and name attributes
	add another type-like attribute

This is structurally equivalent to my suggestion of adding a single attribute.  Is one new attribute all you need?

Norman, what are the (structural) details of your suggestion?

Ideally a v1.11 packet will be similar enough to a (variation of) a v2.0 packet that tools we currently have won't necessarily balk.  Which is to say that I would prefer to deprecate (or ignore) current attributes, even if the v2.0 "way" is quite different.  Backwards compatibility is something of a metaphysical concept with XML schema, but let's not ignore the needs of all the projects that have deployed on top of v1.11.

Keeping the semantic metaphysics (certainly very interesting) to a minimum, what are the precise options we are considering?  Attribute name(s), value(s)?  How many options are there on the table?

There is a consensus here, but we won't see it until the details of the different suggestions are compared point-by-point.

Rob