Proposed Response to FPDAM Part 1 BR-0001, et al
shawnv at microsoft.com
Tue Jan 26 06:18:52 CET 2010
I'm increasingly confused as to how this is being interpreted as closing doors. Again, here's the text, with the portion that I believe keeps the door open bracketed:
WG4 has conducted extensive research into versioning technology associated with ISO/IEC 29500. Our conclusions are that, absent a clearly specified, unsupported versioning use case, additional versioning technology should not be added to ISO/IEC 29500. The potential consequences of introducing a flawed versioning technology clearly outweigh any potential benefits.
Furthermore, ISO/IEC 29500 already supports a number of different mechanisms to enable many versioning scenarios. Here is a sampling of such mechanisms:
* XML Namespaces - Provides for "major" version increments that are not designed to be backward compatible with existing implementations.
* Extension Lists - Provides for adding orthogonal data in predefined locations within the XML. See Part 1.
* Parts - Provides for adding entirely new payloads into the file container. See Part 2.
* Alternative Content Blocks - Provides for adding multiple renditions anywhere in the XML. See Part 3.
* Ignorable Namespaces - Provides for adding orthogonal data anywhere in the XML. See Part 3.
Given these, and other, mechanisms currently provided for in ISO/IEC 29500, and that such mechanisms provide support for the known versioning use cases, WG4 does not believe we need a new versioning technology. <<We continue to evaluate new versioning-related use cases, and in the event we find one which cannot be supported by existing versioning technologies, we will consider adding additional versioning technology at that time.>>
In other words, we're acknowledging that evaluations are continuing and that we'll make changes/additions as the evaluations dictate ...
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 7:47 PM
To: Shawn Villaron
Cc: Innovimax SARL; Rex Jaeschke; SC 34 WG4
Subject: Re: Proposed Response to FPDAM Part 1 BR-0001, et al
> I'm confused. We spent months talking about versioning in the context of the namespace DR.
>So I'm confused when we say we've only talked about versioning for a
>few hours ...
Months on versioning in general, but the decision not to introduce a versioning attribute as part of the Part4 FPDAM1 was entirely done in Denmark.
> I don't believe my text closes the doors on improving versioning down the road.
I think that it does. Any rewrite that does not obviously close the doors (including some version attribute) is fine to me.
More information about the sc34wg4