Proposed Response to FPDAM Part 1 BR-0001, et al

[Shawn Villaron]

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 Response

Rejected.

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 ...

-----Original Message-----
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.


Cheers,
Makoto