Joe Gregorio wrote:
On 6/6/06, Michael Wechner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
I guess one could consider the introspection document as
a published API. From the most recent draft (0.8) it is not clear to me
if an introspection document has a version (7.1 Example) or how else
will backwards/forwards compatibility handled in the case of the
introspection?
Do we need verbage like that of Section 6.2 in the Format spec?
I think it definitely needs something describing how the namespace is
being used
to version the spec and I think to better indicate this it would make
sense to
add a version number already to the Atom namespace.
Another thought re forward compatibility would be that the client could
send its supported
versions within the HTTP header to the server when asking for the
introspection file or other stuff.
This way one would give the server a chance to to act as good as it can,
whereas I am not sure if
this is already part of the spec, because I couldn't find anything about
this within the spec.
Thanks
Michi
"" The Atom namespace is reserved for future forward-compatible
revisions of Atom. Future versions of this specification could add
new elements and attributes to the Atom markup vocabulary. Software
written to conform to this version of the specification will not be
able to process such markup correctly and, in fact, will not be able
to distinguish it from markup error. For the purposes of this
discussion, unrecognized markup from the Atom vocabulary will be
considered "foreign markup".
""
-joe
--
Michael Wechner
Wyona - Open Source Content Management - Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com http://lenya.apache.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+41 44 272 91 61
