The major differences from
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-20060929.html that we reviewed
- Moved all xml material (section xml terminology in section 1, plus all
of 8,9) into the versioning-xml finding (and changed versioning-part2 to
- shuffled first section on why/how/why extend
- added a section on application versioning that Noah wrote
- added some text on trade-offs between extensibility and
- Inserted new section 2 "Versioning Strategies" that has versioning
designs from big bang to forwards compatible to backwards compatible and
includes replacement and side by side deployment
- Added summary section to requirements section and design question (for
use in case studies section)
- Added version #s to identifying and extending languages section (now
- Added Case Stuides
The major differences for the xml (nee part 2) from 2004 Nov that were
never reviewed are
- insertions from Part 1
- inserted section 2 version identification technologies
- added only 1 namespace + version # as identification strategy
- refined section 4 on indicating compatibility of extensions
- Added section 5 explaining schema 1.0
- added section 8 case studies of xml versioning
- Updated Other technologies section 10
- Added notes on Redefine
Sadly to report, there are very little cutbacks in size.
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
In section 3.8 "What Schema language(s)?"  you say "For example,
writing a V2 compatible schema in W3C XML Schema requires special
design, which is not required in a schema language such as RELAX NG."
I'm not sure I understand what is meant here -- is there somewhere
else in the document (or its companion) where this point is expanded a
> In section 3.8 "What Schema language(s)?"  you say "For example,
> writing a V2 compatible schema in W3C XML Schema requires special
> design, which is not required in a schema language such as RELAX NG."
> I'm not sure I understand what is meant here -- is there somewhere else
> in the document (or its companion) where this point is expanded a bit?
I don't know the specific answer, but what comes to mind is the UPA
constraint. Given two similar schemas v1 and v2, it requires considerable
craft to create a WXS schema that will accept documents conforming to
either v1 or v2, whereas in RNG it's as simple as writing "v1 | v2".
See Norm's blog post at http://norman.walsh.name/2004/07/25/xslt20 .
It was dreary and wearisome. Cold clammy winter still held way in this
forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed
up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
--"The Passage of the Marshes" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan