• From: james anderson <james.anderson@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:07:56 +0200

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> ....  Yes, it can be done with a URI but
> only if the URI has version number on the end of it.
> Not complex, but I think [un?]necessary. ...
> 

?
Why is that so bad?
What does articulating the version information accomplish?
How is it operationally different than using an URI form which supports
versions. And/or developing an URI form which has the semantics which
one requires? Wouldn't this have the advantage of unbundling the version
semantics from the XML encoding?

• References:
  • RE: Namespace and Versioning
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Namespace and Versioning
• Next by Date: Re: Namespace and Versioning
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespace and Versioning
• Next by thread: RE: Namespace and Versioning
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread