Re: [ietf-provreg] XML Schema versioning in 4310bis

[Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:01:47AM +0100, Ulrich Wisser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> in this case I have to agree with James. We discussed changing the URI  
> and came to the conclusion that changing the URI will break old clients  
> without any need to do so.

That argument is circular.  What is up for debate is whether there is
in fact a need to do this.

> But let's have a look on the alternatives:
>
> 1. Server supports only the "old" 1.0
>    - no changes on client or server
> 2. Server supports only the "new" 1.0
>    - only changes on the server side needed
> 3. Server supports both
>    - only changes on the server side needed

But in (2) and (3), the client _can't tell_ what support is in the
server.  The whole point of the handshake in the protocol is to make
it possible for people to tell.

> Which registry is going to support 1.0 after 1.1 has been released for  
> any time longer then needed? 

Who knows?  This is the Internet.  We have parts of the DNS
infrastructure (including several MSFT APIs) that don't support the
DNS Unknown type, even though that was specified over 10 years ago and
is terribly useful.

> Another question comes to mind: Why should 1.1 be backwards compatible?  
> If we break the URI there is no need to keep the broken <rem/>, is it?

Right.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
List run by majordomo software.  For (Un-)subscription and similar details
send "help" to ietf-provreg-request@cafax.se