Hi Andy, On 20.10.25 13:01, Andy Newton wrote:
On 18-10-2025 12:55 PM, Pawel Kowalik wrote:On 17.10.25 16:00, Andy Newton wrote:On 10/16/25 02:27, Pawel Kowalik wrote:The question was referring to the collision/registration scenario. Should it be allowed that: version 0 registers foo and foov0 version 1 registers foov1If yes, collision rules defined in 2.2 need to be fine tuned to account for such versioning scenario, e.g. by saying that in case of versions of the same extensions collisions are allowed, or by disallowing collisions even on the level of the same extension - means that version 0 would not be allowed to register foov1 and foo and would need to register foov1 and bar instead. foov2 won't be in conflict with any of them in this case.These are opaque identifiers. There is no inherent connection between them, therefore the normal collision rules apply.Does it relate to version 1 or also version 0 registration?So to put it straight, would version 0 registers both foo and foov0 be allowed, or collision rules also apply to the registrations of the same extension?Hi Pawel,Upon further reflection, I think I was misunderstanding your idea. If I understand correctly, your idea is to specify a "base" extension id and then use other extension ids that are markers for new versions of the base extension.... essentially, extension versioning but with opaque identifiers.The rules in 2.2 are meant to avoid collisions between unrelated extensions and I am not certain they would prevent what you are seeking, but I could see how they might need to explicitly allow it. I do think the rules for such an idea could get complicated, so I think we would need to work through them in some proposed text. Maybe we can discuss this at 124.
Cool. Let's discuss at 124. Kind Regards, Pawel
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
