You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
You don't just switch from one form to another. You always have to have both for a while. Severs in the server-interim must provide both, and clients during the client-interim accept either. Interim periods of a year, for example, would be reasonable. Then when it changes to remove the old one from servers, then you upgrade the major version of the protocol. For example to 1.0.0 in the case of a protocol at 0.9
I don't think this counts as "just switch". I'm all for smooth transitions, but I would also argue that just arriving at a 0.9 is a major version upgrade from the documents we had earlier.
As far as the specs are concerned, there is about a year between ED (created: 2020-12-16) and the Version 0.9.0 (published: 2021-12-17). Or close to two years from the closing of this issue on 2020-02-21 and the publication of Version 0.9.0. Version 0.9.0 was also approved without MS-Author-Via: SPARQL.
Perhaps we should/could/would've caught potential issues with the tools earlier if we had merged Kjetil's PR back around 2021-10-14 for NSS.
IMO, implementations should transition at their own discretion but Version 0.9.x shouldn't bring backintroduce the header. Please?
If we are going to be consistent about this, then Version 0.9.0 should've kept Accept-Patch: application/sparql-update as well in addition to current recommendation with text/n3. I'm sure there are similar cases..
Activity
kjetilk commentedon Nov 26, 2019
IMHO, redundant because of
Accept-Patch: application/sparql-update.kjetilk commentedon Jan 16, 2020
Moreover, in https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ReadWriteLinkedData.html @timbl writes
Thus, I think we can safely move this to rough consensus.
csarven commentedon Jan 16, 2020
+1 to not supporting MS-Author-Via in #85 (comment)
csarven commentedon Feb 21, 2020
Moving this to "Done" and closing this issue as there is no requirement to specify.
timbl commentedon Mar 23, 2022
You don't just switch from one form to another. You always have to have both for a while. Severs in the server-interim must provide both, and clients during the client-interim accept either. Interim periods of a year, for example, would be reasonable. Then when it changes to remove the old one from servers, then you upgrade the major version of the protocol. For example to 1.0.0 in the case of a protocol at 0.9
kjetilk commentedon Mar 23, 2022
@timbl : You explicitly OKed this in an Editor's meeting a year ago, and
Accept-Patchwas added to NSS six years ago.I don't think this counts as "just switch". I'm all for smooth transitions, but I would also argue that just arriving at a 0.9 is a major version upgrade from the documents we had earlier.
csarven commentedon Mar 23, 2022
Tim, point taken but there is also this:
As far as the specs are concerned, there is about a year between ED (created: 2020-12-16) and the Version 0.9.0 (published: 2021-12-17). Or close to two years from the closing of this issue on 2020-02-21 and the publication of Version 0.9.0. Version 0.9.0 was also approved without
MS-Author-Via: SPARQL.Perhaps we should/could/would've caught potential issues with the tools earlier if we had merged Kjetil's PR back around 2021-10-14 for NSS.
IMO, implementations should transition at their own discretion but Version 0.9.x shouldn't
bring backintroduce the header. Please?If we are going to be consistent about this, then Version 0.9.0 should've kept
Accept-Patch: application/sparql-updateas well in addition to current recommendation withtext/n3. I'm sure there are similar cases..