[tcs-lc] Minor modifications prior TDWG ratification vote

[Sally Hinchcliffe]

Rich wrote:
> 
> Sally wrote:
> 
> > I think we also mentioned at the time that we should
> > confine these last minute amendments to changes that would otherwise
> > break backwards compatibility (for example changing element names, or
> > removing something, or adding a required field).
> 
> I can certainly understand this constraint in the context of "minor" changes
> to TCS 1.00 before final "lock-in".  However, I do desperately hope that
> this backward-compatibility constraint will not be imposed on changes made
> for version 2.00.  Backward compatibility is certainly nice, but in this
> context, I think it would be debilitating....
> 
I think (again this was talked over at the meeting) that we go from 
1.0 to 2.0 basically when we break backwards compatibility in some 
form. So it's not impossible (and we're probably going to have to 
break it in some way anyway) but there should be a big threshold of 
need before we break it, and then we should aim to break it once and 
hold off before breaking it again. 
By the time we get to version 2.0 I predict we will have a lot of TCS 
implementations out there in one form or another, including one for 
IPNI, so big changes will be painful and if we keep breaking people's 
implementations then we will not be popular
That said if we can provide easy XSLT transformations between 1.x and 
2.0 it might not be too bad

Sally
*** Sally Hinchcliffe
*** Computer section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
*** tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5708
*** S.Hinchcliffe at rbgkew.org.uk