Denny, > It is as close to a universal unique version identifier as possible, > but it loses the semantics of semantic versioning, which let you do > baselines and whatnot, which in turn lets you not even worry about > version numbers, per se, as they are not arbitrary and instead mean > specific things about what has changed, and can be generated > automatically, which lets other stuff down the line figure out > dependencies automatically. > > However, unless you're using the latest tooling, the semantics are > lost anyways (meaning they have to be handled manually- they still
This would be my point - you generally don't get the URI to parse it, just to match it, so that it is really a unique identifier and nothing more. Parsers won't look at it for version info to decide if their knowledge of the 1.2.1 version should allow them to parse the 1.2.0 version. The parser just sees that the two are different. > I'm partial to the blah:blah:blah:1.0 type of deal because it's short, I have concern that the version number will be confused with the Matterhorn version number, which is unrelated. E.g. if you see urn:X-opencast:engage:1.2 and you are using a 1.3 server you might think there is a problem when there is really no difference. I'm fine with changing the date to dashes, though I don't know which xpath tools you are using that will be breaking on namespaces with \'s, the W3C uses them everywhere.... Chris -- Christopher Brooks, BSc, MSc ARIES Laboratory, University of Saskatchewan Web: http://www.cs.usask.ca/~cab938 Phone: 1.306.966.1442 Mail: Advanced Research in Intelligent Educational Systems Laboratory Department of Computer Science University of Saskatchewan 176 Thorvaldson Building 110 Science Place Saskatoon, SK S7N 5C9 _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
