SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft

SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft

SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft

HALL,DAVID (HP-Vancouver,ex1) dhall at hp.com
Wed Feb 12 18:10:07 EST 2003


One reason that I can think of is that I think of the version as part of the
namespace, and the "foo" to be the interface name.

<namespace>/<interfacename>

Hence

http://www.pwg.org/ps/2003/02/12/JobControlInterface

The flip side of the argument is that the namespace is:
http://www.pwg.org/ps, and the interface is JobControlInterface/2003/02/12

Giving us:

<namespace>/<interfacename>/<interfaceversion>

I'm not sure what the right answer is..

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: TAYLOR,BOB (HP-Vancouver,ex1) 
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:35 PM
To: HALL,DAVID (HP-Vancouver,ex1); 'sm at pwg.org'; 'pwg at pwg.org'
Subject: RE: SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft


Hi all,

One question on this since I missed last week's meeting.  When we're
actually
declaring namespaces, the recommendation appeared to be of the style:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/2002/04/foo

We are right now doing the following:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/foo/2002/04/

I.e., pretty much the same model, but put the version/date after the service
declaration rather than in the middle of it.  I think this makes more sense
- was
there a specific reason to put the version/date in the middle instead of on 
the end?

bt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: HALL,DAVID (HP-Vancouver,ex1) [mailto:dhall at hp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 8:26 AM
> To: 'sm at pwg.org'; 'pwg at pwg.org'
> Subject: SM> Interface / Document revisioning Working Draft
> 
> 
> Hey All..
> 
> Attached are the notes from Tuesdays PSI meeting..  I 
> apologize for the late
> publication, but I've been absolutely swamped since Tuesday!
> 
> Keep in mind that this is a work in progress...
> 
> Dave
> 
>  <<Spec Stuff.doc>> 
> 



More information about the Sm mailing list