[tdwg-tapir] TAPIR namespace and versioning

Javier de la Torre jatorre at gmail.com
Mon Aug 14 17:13:48 CEST 2006

Hi Renato,

I still think we should remove totally the version number from the  
namespace and fix it to just tapir. I prefer that than asking people  
to ignore the namespace when parsing documents. If clients want to  
try with newer versions of the protocol then I prefer they ignore the  
version attribute than the namespace. I like to know from the  
namespace that something is TAPIR at least.

I dont really see the advantage of including the version number on  
the namespace, but still... if you prefer so I would suggest then  
that we have the namespace like:


And not 1.0. For me 1.0 looks like a real version number and  
therefore we could have 1.1 that looks like a minor revision of the  

But in the other hand the 1 alone does not look very pretty.

Finally a comment on your answer to why is useful to include the  
version number on the namespace:

> About your last question, versioning the schema targetNamespace
> potentially affects each DOM node, SAX event and XPath node defined
> in existing applications. This can be good or bad, depending on the
> set of changes that were made in the protocol.

I dont really understand your answer. I dont think implementation of  
the TAPIR protocol will make use of our targetNamespace, the same way  
that for creating a WFS service I dont use the official XML schema, I  
just worry that I validate against it.
But if you are worry is that we might make a change in the protocol  
that makes it not backward compatible... then we are in the same  
discussion as in ABCD, only change the namespace if the changes break  
backwards compatibility.

But even on the namespace or in the version attribute whenever we  
start making changes to TAPIR protocol implementations will have to  
start worrying about versions. If we go including version number in  
the namespace and in the version attribute then it is going to be two  
places where implementations will have to start taking care. At some  
point I think there is not going to be any way we will avoid having  
to consider version negotiation, but still maybe the first version of  
TAPIR doesnt need to declared it. It could be in the next revision  
where we include this. And frankly the kind of version negotiation  
through the capabilities document as described in OGC standards is  
pretty simple to implement at least in the server side.

So... anybody supports the remove of the version number in the  
namespace? If not I shut up right now.


More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list