Hi,

I'm very interested in the reasons behind this -

 > Putting a version in the namespace is definitely not the right thing 
to do.

I ask because I've seen that as a possible approach to versioning 
(http://www.xfront.com/Versioning.pdf) and it seems a number of 
practitioners have adopted this e.g. the US Dept of Navy, xCIL, etc.

I'm sure you've answered this before but I can't find an archive of 
xmlschema-dev to search online.

Cheers,

Fraser


Eliot Kimber wrote:

>
> Dan Vint wrote:
>
>> I agree with the idea that namespaces could provide this 
>> functionality, except that most folks recommend not versioning the 
>> namespace. I believe you or someone in this thread suggested using 
>> the version attribute for this function. Well that might work if the 
>> parsers actually did something with the version attribute. The only 
>> mechanism that I can be sure will be caught by the parser is to use 
>> the namespace with a version to indicate that the document conforms 
>> to a different version of the standard than someone else might be using.
>
>
> If you're depending on *parsers* to bind instances to schemas then you 
> should be using schemaLocation= because clearly you have control over 
> that part of the system (the parsers you're using). Put the version 
> information in the URI of the XSD instance. I don't see that you can 
> do anything other that that.
>
> Putting a version in the namespace is definitely not the right thing 
> to do.
>
> Both Mike Kay and I have have recommended using a separate version 
> attribute to indicate the schema version to use. This presumes that 
> you have the ability to implement the mechanism that binds documents 
> to schemas, which you may not have.
>
>
>



Attention:
This email may contain information intended for the sole use of
the original recipient. Please respect this when sharing or
disclosing this email's contents with any third party. If you
believe you have received this email in error, please delete it
and notify the sender or postmaster@s... as
soon as possible. The content of this email does not necessarily
reflect the views of SolNet Solutions Ltd.



From ekimber@i... Wed May 11 14:50:02 2005
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([193.51.208.68])
	by