My vote is to:

Name the spec XRD 1.0 Drop the ?version? attribute Drop the proposal to have multiple ?profiles? (i.e. XRDS-Simple) Use an HTTP namespace under the OASIS domain with version 1.0. If people find this confusing, I would be ok with a dated namespace. As a last resort, I would support using a version 3.0 namespace with an explanation why the spec itself is version 1.0.

Here is why:

I think the real question here is what to do with the ?version? attribute. In many ways, it is very similar to the ?profile? attribute proposed earlier to support the XRDS-Simple use case. I am ?1 on both and

why. My understanding of the ?version? attribute is that it

the resolver workflow, not to the schema which is independently versioned via an XML namespace.

I cannot think of use cases where the schema does not change at

the meaning of the document does. The most likely scenario to

adding elements via XML namespace import, and in that case, the resolver will need to take those new additions into account (as they may

meaning of the document). I believe that the schema itself is

just a format but also tightly linked to its meaning. If we want

the meaning but not the schema, we should still change the XML namespace. Either way, existing parsers will need to change so why does it

breaks them (different version of different namespace).

In addition, I have changed my views on the ?profile? attribute.

this point the only element which might be considered ?advance?

and it is an important requirement for any delegation of

other issue raised by developers was the ?priority? attribute but again, it is too important to remove.

If we remove these two attributes, we are left with a single

which will get a new namespace. Since this new namespace will be

URI, I do not think it matters if it is version 1.0 or dated. It

sufficiently different form the XRI namespace (which more people didn?t understand) and from the version attribute value. Because of that

more towards a version 1.0 in the namespace than a date, but will

date over version 3.0.

The spec itself should be XRD 1.0 either way, not matter what

end up using (and assuming we are dropping the ?version?

better to version it 1.0 and put a comment why the namespace has

than make everything 3.0...

EHL

On 11/23/08 11:18 PM, "Drummond Reed"

Nat, RE your [Q1], I don't think OASIS mandates how schemas are versioned. That's up to individual TCs (I'm trusting Mary or Robin will

I'm wrong.]

RE your [Q2], I think that it is also up to us when we make a version change. Changing the schema would seem to be one of the

which we would definitely make a version change, but it does seem like other spec changes could also trigger a version change (for example, as you mentioned, verification rules).

Suggestion: since much of this seems to hinge around whether the

retains a version attribute, why don't selector see if we can

first.

1) Who has strong feelings one way or another about whether the

should have a version attribute?

2) If so, should the use of the version attribute be required?

3) If there is a version attribute, who has strong feeling about

numeric (as it currently is in XRI Resolution 2.0)? Or a date value?

=Drummond