RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Resolution of Q& R issue - closes Octo ber23d

MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Resolution of Q& R issue - closes Octo	ber23d

From: "Durham, Shane (LNG-CL)" <>

To: Electronic Court Filing TC <>

Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:31:55 -0700

I generally concur with Dallas' assesment.

1.1 is frozen. Changes should be considered "1.something else".

With respect to the 'import' issue, I suggest "1.1.x" might be more
appropriate than "1.2"
Because..  ...the changes for import are only semantic. 

The rules for LegalXML message construction remain the same.
We are only changing the way we have written those rules.

The XML I validate against 1.1.x DTD, is also perfactly valid against the
1.1 DTD.
(I think)

What was it that we decided in Utah regarding version numbers?

"A.B"

To my recollection, something like this:

A change in A represents major incompatible changes.  Prior versions are not
compatible with current version.  Prior version evaluations and acceptablity
tests can not apply to the current version.

A change in B implies minor changes.  Prior version are compatible with the
current version.  Prior version evaluations and acceptablity tests only need
to be extended for the new version's additional features.

So, maybe.. I am suggesting a 'C' portion.  ( "A.B.c" )

A change in C implies DTD/Schema syntactic change only. The resulting XML
messages do not change content or structure. The current version is
compatible with prior version.  Prior version evaluations and acceptablity
tests are fully applicable to the current version.

- Shane