Re: [vwrap] [ogpx] type-system : version tag and handling unknown tags

Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> Tue, 06 April 2010 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00AEB3A67F4 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x8FjTCXP3epA for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f181.google.com (mail-qy0-f181.google.com [209.85.221.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C543A67E3 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk11 with SMTP id 11so5070247qyk.13 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:received:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=S/u/TzuNUbq2r14vJYp6BMHpsDKE1RtOjYyg973qJDA=; b=qsB5ReF4M6nXIatEcY4n4NUYTkgstK3ZNJjXqS6SU2KcKD08KgIVLa0ovrSs64GbZF aDVCioJHWre2cki3oK1VF4TU09ip6nbJA6bLkgO9s69MbqfXtqLnsdT3iZ/Rz8xTdtb1 LP8xlB3pj6I9Anu8Sd9HRROEXH/0h3Ef88A/c=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=n8VD7I9HbkeQXCko37D/+r7iMPEf5f6NcVL1jI4jeNE7srjQUh1tCePeq41DZnTz0L 85AIbBl4ADU662FpLcY3gBHBiHT7Fz/KdnyzQLw02MdbJkaW8SkYx+vGTX6HxNlHTEJu yBFaXN4Iyik3sOAhi3nuqJMphEU04QBx/78Us=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.247.72 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <80CE754B-4BF5-4DA1-A63C-DD18695BF4D0@lindenlab.com>
References: <b325928b1003281033j1ccaa3dend06ebbce29a13359@mail.gmail.com> <201003282229.21448.bobby@sharedrealm.com> <80CE754B-4BF5-4DA1-A63C-DD18695BF4D0@lindenlab.com>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:14:13 -0700
Received: by 10.229.224.79 with SMTP id in15mr12001083qcb.76.1270563273310; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <o2kb325928b1004060714p355cd27axff5b33ddc2551ded@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Lentczner <markl@lindenlab.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: vwrap <vwrap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [vwrap] [ogpx] type-system : version tag and handling unknown tags
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:14:40 -0000

what do systems that only understand xml 1.0 do if they encounter xml 1.1?

the purpose of the version tag and the rule that you ignore but
preserve tags you don't understand is to provide the hope for
extension for situations we do not currently foresee.

-cheers
-meadhbh
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com



On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Mark Lentczner <markl@lindenlab.com> wrote:
> In trying to think thought the scenarios where a version field might be workable, I'm coming up short:
>
> A v.n only reader encountering v.n+1 could only make two choices: Ignore everything it doesn't understand and assume that the semantics of the content aren't affected, or reject the transmission entirely. We'd have to choose now how it should react.
>
> If it is ignoring things, then it seems that any v.n+1 extension would have to be defined like "If you understand v.n+1, then ignore some (or all) of the v.n stuff and substitute this richer data." But at that point, we are mostly using this version stuff as a way of stuffing two or more versions of the data in the same container. Extending this beyond one or two revisions is likely to get out of hand.
>
> If it is rejecting things, then this has little use here, since there must be some signaling and protocol for negotiation to handle this case in some outer scope (HTTP, say). But then, why not just embed the version information at the higher scope (MIME-type, say)?
>
> The "ignore by preserve" semantic works well for processing streams, and in cases where the vast bulk of the data is understood, and the ignored, foreign markup, isn't semantically important. VWRAP's use of LLSD doesn't seem to fit that model.
>
>
> Mark Lentczner
> Sr. Systems Architect
> Technology Integration
> Linden Lab
>
> markl@lindenlab.com
>
> Zero Linden
> zero.linden@secondlife.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>