Rob:
> > So I think we don't increment the namespace at all and all of the new
> > fields go in to the existing namespace.  We can increment it at major
> > versions if we feel the need.

Matthew:
> If we are going to do it this way - I think I would like to drop the
> version number from the namespaces. This is going to be messy but we are
> going to do it sometime (e.g. when we hit 2.0).

Changing the namespace should be a 30 second tweak for most
implementations, I would think?  But why bother, as that guarantees the
client/server interop issues, when we can just leave it alone?

> Most webservices to date, do the Rob approach of creating a new
> namespace for the new server. A server which supports multiple versions
> will do so at different URL endpoints (e.g. http://myserver.org/srw11
> for SRW 1.1, http://myserver.org/srw10 for SRW 1.0.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.  It's not like listening on another
port as per traditional inetd services... multiple endpoint urls have a
close to zero additional cost.

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::.                WWW: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I