Subject: Even simpler versioning and extensibility

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:55:52 -0700

Greetings again. Following the recent threads, there seems to be some 
people who want the Atom core spec to really be core. Given that, I 
have created 
<http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceNoVersioningPlainExtensibility> 
as a proposal for reducing versioning and extensibility to the least 
needed. It gets us out of the managing-the-future game.

Thoughts?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Dare Obasanjo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:30:07 -0700 (PDT)

> needed. It gets us out of the managing-the-future

I assume this isn't the proposed spec text in your
Pace but more an exploration of the ideas you'd like
to see in a Pace. 

Either way, I am -1 on the ideas in this Pace. The
Pace basically states, versioning is too hard so we
won't do it. Sorry I don't buy that approach. 

PS: Given that we are supposed to have 3 supporters
before announcing a Pace I'd like to know what the
supporters of this Pace think it is more beneficial
than the other Paces that have been proposed. 

=====
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #23
I will keep a special cache of low-tech weapons and train my troops in their use. That way -- even if the heroes manage to neutralize my power generator and/or render the standard-issue energy weapons useless -- my troops will not be overrun by a handful of savages armed with spears and rocks.

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:59:37 -0700

>Pace but more an exploration of the ideas you'd like

Correct.

>won't do it. Sorry I don't buy that approach.

Well, you in particular haven't been clear on which approach you 
"buy". How about stating so clearly?

>than the other Paces that have been proposed.

The "3 supporters" idea was for date-related paces, given the huge 
hassle that they went through first. We are not being that strict on 
new proposals for things that haven't been as long-winded in the past.

--Paul Hoffman, Director

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:02:29 -0700

> Pace but more an exploration of the ideas you'd like

Fair criticism.  I've written my name down as a supporter and I'll 
undertake to turn this into camera-ready spec language.

> won't do it. Sorry I don't buy that approach.

I disagree.  If you want to add a new tag, just do it.  The Pace 
prevents receiving software from declaring an error, and doesn't 
constrain it to do anything in particular.  If you want to change the 
semantics of an existing tag, don't; put it in a new namespace and 
change its name.  I have to say this feels squeaky-clean.

Dare, unless I'm missing something, none of the proposals for 
versioning was free of fairly substantive objections - in many cases 
the objections came from you, and in many cases I thought they were 
reasonable.  So if you think we need more versioning than this, please 
write some draft language.

> before announcing a Pace

Nope, announce all you want.  It's just that for various matters (e.g. 
Date), we put a 3-supporter threshold on for serious consideration.   
On extensibility, we've been making poor enough progress that I for one 
welcome new ideas. -Tim

---

From: Dare Obasanjo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:06:27 -0700 (PDT)

> "buy". How about stating so clearly?

I'd vote for Tim Bray's PaceMinimalVersioning if it
got rid of the mustUnderstand stuff since it breaks
the supposed simplicity of the Pace. As long as the
folks on the list acknowledge that not supporting
mustUnderstand scenarios is a conscious decision. 

If Atom wants to go full hog on a versioning and
extensibility model, I've already given my opinions on
how to modify Dave Orchard's proposal to meet that
need[0] 
 
Either versioning Pace works for me. Not having a
versioning or clear extensibility model, doesn't. 

[0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg09982.html

=====

---

From: Walter Underwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:12 -0700

--On Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:30 PM -0700 Dare Obasanjo <[email-masked]> wrote:
> before announcing a Pace ...

I think that was a special rule for date-related Paces.

wunder
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Architect, Verity