Re: Changes to Protocol Docs - a Summary

["Mal Lansell" <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The only reason to specify anything about the format (including
whether a leading v is allowed) is if another application is
expected to compare it to another version value (looking for
updates, for example).

If you don't specify the format, then you can't guarantee to parse
it at compare it to another version number.  And if you can't do
that, you may as well not set any rules at all (and the version then
just becomes a piece of information for the user to look at).

Personally I'd like a specific format so the front end can look for
newer versions on the web.

Mal



--- In ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx, Gerry Duprey <gerry@c...> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> > Is it necessary to tie developers to a particular format? Saying
that it shouldn't be
> > prefixed by "version" or "v" etc is quite
different from
specifying exactly how they
> > should be formatted.
>
> I tend to agree.  While asking that the version number be
"raw" (I
like that
> description) makes some sense, beyond that, it really needs to be
up to the
> developer of the device.  For some simpler devices, the version
may be a
> simple two byte hex pair (i.e. version=00 to version=ff) as that
may be all
> there is space for.  Others may want particularly detailed version
numbers
> (version=1.02.9rc1_a).
>
> I'm not 100% up on the XML file stuff (I've created one, but not
looked at
> it in a while), but if there is a version in there, I think the
only real
> requirement we can ask is that the version # in the version= tag
matches a
> version number in the XML.  Even that may be getting to pointy
though.
>
> Gerry
> --
> Gerry Duprey
> Ann Arbor, MI 48103
> http://www.cdp1802.org