Re: EPP to Draft: Next Steps

Michael Young <[email protected]> 2005-09-21 00:08
> Scott looks like you have a significant group saying don't version - I will
> defer to the collective given that clearly no one wants the hassle of a
> version change.
> 
> Patrick I still think you have a point but it seems like not a strong enough
> one for this audience.      

I have no problem with that, and did not want to cause so much
trouble. I have read and implemented the
documents in one way, others in another. I will change my software to
accomodate both cases, and future version of documents will be more
clear, which will be a benefit for everyone. Sorry not to have
spotted this discrepancy way earlier, I'm kind of always late, and
sorry for the trouble.

Just for information:
> > All having a minOccurs=0 attribute means that all are optional.  This 
> > is part of the error in 3731.  The schema correctly says they don't 
> > need to be there.  The text does.  The text is wrong.
> 
> Agree. Schema is normative.

And when XML did not exist, what was normative in the RFC ? The text,
no ? :-)

> >                                  It might indeed cause a problem for a 
> > server written to the old text.
> 
> A problem only for server(s) written (imprudently) to the (non-normative)
> text.

Since it is nowhere written that some part is less normative than
another, I believe it to be risky to say something is imprudent.
This is another reason for interoperability tests :-)

-- 
Patrick Mevzek
Dot and Co <http://www.dotandco.com/>