Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Namespace (Version 1.0 & 1.1)

Expand Messages
  • falkebruinsma
    I ve noticed that the more recent version of ExpertGPS (1.3.7) is writing version 1.1 GPX files. Unfortunately the GPX website makes no mention of v1.1 yet, so
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I've noticed that the more recent version of ExpertGPS (1.3.7) is
      writing version 1.1 GPX files. Unfortunately the GPX website makes no
      mention of v1.1 yet, so I'll pose my question here:

      Could someone explain why the namespace was changed between the 1.0
      and 1.1 versions? Were the changes made that significant that it
      required changing the namespace?

      The implications of changing the namespace are significant and
      usually breaks compatibility between the two versions. This is
      good if the files are truly incompatible, but was that the case here?
      Otherwise we may be better served by keeping the namespace the same
      across compatible versions.

      Thanks,
      -Falke
    • Dan Foster
      Hello, Thursday, July 1, 2004, 10:43:57 AM, Falke wrote: f Could someone explain why the namespace was changed between the 1.0 f and 1.1 versions? Were the
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello,

        Thursday, July 1, 2004, 10:43:57 AM, Falke wrote:

        f> Could someone explain why the namespace was changed between the 1.0
        f> and 1.1 versions? Were the changes made that significant that it
        f> required changing the namespace?

        f> The implications of changing the namespace are significant and
        f> usually breaks compatibility between the two versions. This is
        f> good if the files are truly incompatible, but was that the case here?
        f> Otherwise we may be better served by keeping the namespace the same
        f> across compatible versions.

        Several GPX 1.0 elements were removed from GPX 1.1.
        Is there any way we could have done this and kept the same namespace
        and still had both versions validate correctly?

        I agree with your point that we should make every effort to keep from
        changing the namespace. For example, we've had several proposals to
        add new optional elements to GPX, and I believe those should be added
        to the spec without bumping the namespace number.

        What difficulties are you running into with the two namespaces? I was
        able to parse both namespaces in MSXML without needing any explicit
        version checks.

        --
        Dan Foster
        TopoGrafix - GPS Software, Waypoints, and Maps
        http://www.topografix.com - mailto:egroups@...
      • David S. Wissenbach
        ... 1.0 ... it ... here? ... same ... namespace ... from ... to ... added ... was ... I can t speak for Falke, but... Here s one small difficulty. A stylesheet
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gpsxml@yahoogroups.com, Dan Foster <egroups@t...> wrote:
          > Hello,
          >
          > Thursday, July 1, 2004, 10:43:57 AM, Falke wrote:
          >
          > f> Could someone explain why the namespace was changed between the
          1.0
          > f> and 1.1 versions? Were the changes made that significant that
          it
          > f> required changing the namespace?
          >
          > f> The implications of changing the namespace are significant and
          > f> usually breaks compatibility between the two versions. This is
          > f> good if the files are truly incompatible, but was that the case
          here?
          > f> Otherwise we may be better served by keeping the namespace the
          same
          > f> across compatible versions.
          >
          > Several GPX 1.0 elements were removed from GPX 1.1.
          > Is there any way we could have done this and kept the same
          namespace
          > and still had both versions validate correctly?
          >
          > I agree with your point that we should make every effort to keep
          from
          > changing the namespace. For example, we've had several proposals
          to
          > add new optional elements to GPX, and I believe those should be
          added
          > to the spec without bumping the namespace number.
          >
          > What difficulties are you running into with the two namespaces? I
          was
          > able to parse both namespaces in MSXML without needing any explicit
          > version checks.
          >

          I can't speak for Falke, but...

          Here's one small difficulty. A stylesheet written with the target
          namespace of GPX1.0 doesn't work with GPX1.1 files.

          However, the new GPX metadata element, the use of extensions to hold
          private elements, and the use of the wpt type for trackpoints,
          routes, and waypoints, constitute an accumulated difference so large
          that the new namespace should be used.

          Most applications should be able to handle both 1.0 and 1.1 data--my
          GPX 1.1 prototype does. (I'm in the final debug stage for
          conformance to the specification changes and will be releasing code
          soon.)

          Dave Wissenbach
          > --
          > Dan Foster
          > TopoGrafix - GPS Software, Waypoints, and Maps
          > http://www.topografix.com - mailto:egroups@t...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.