To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Patrick Mevzek <provreg@contact.dotandco.com>
Date:
Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:23:40 +0200
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<E1EHq9c-0003pA-UI@mail.libertyrms.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.5.9i
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] EPP to Draft: Next Steps
Michael Young <myoung@ca.afilias.info> 2005-09-21 00:08 > Scott looks like you have a significant group saying don't version - I will > defer to the collective given that clearly no one wants the hassle of a > version change. > > Patrick I still think you have a point but it seems like not a strong enough > one for this audience. I have no problem with that, and did not want to cause so much trouble. I have read and implemented the documents in one way, others in another. I will change my software to accomodate both cases, and future version of documents will be more clear, which will be a benefit for everyone. Sorry not to have spotted this discrepancy way earlier, I'm kind of always late, and sorry for the trouble. Just for information: > > All having a minOccurs=0 attribute means that all are optional. This > > is part of the error in 3731. The schema correctly says they don't > > need to be there. The text does. The text is wrong. > > Agree. Schema is normative. And when XML did not exist, what was normative in the RFC ? The text, no ? :-) > > It might indeed cause a problem for a > > server written to the old text. > > A problem only for server(s) written (imprudently) to the (non-normative) > text. Since it is nowhere written that some part is less normative than another, I believe it to be risky to say something is imprudent. This is another reason for interoperability tests :-) -- Patrick Mevzek Dot and Co <http://www.dotandco.com/>