Backward Compatibility and the AppXManifest Schema Sets

%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-2730544%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EBackward%20Compatibility%20and%20the%20AppXManifest%20Schema%20Sets%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-2730544%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CSTRONG%3ESTATEMENT%3C%2FSTRONG%3E%3A%20The%20community%20d%3CEM%3Eesperately%20%3C%2FEM%3Eneeds%20documentation%20on%20what%20features%20of%20MSIX%20work%20on%20what%20versions%20of%20the%20OS.%26nbsp%3B%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%3CSTRONG%3EDescription%3A%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FSTRONG%3EIt%20is%20not%20possible%20to%20know%20what%20the%20minimum%20version%20OS%20is%20required%20to%20make%20use%20of%20one%20of%20the%20many%20possible%20elements%2Fattributes%20that%20are%20described%20in%20the%20many%20AppXManifest%20file%20schemas.%26nbsp%3B%20At%20best%2C%20we%20might%20find%20a%20blog%20post%20about%20a%20new%20item%20that%26nbsp%3Bmentions%20a%20minimum%20build%20number.%26nbsp%3B%20And%20while%20it%20might%20work%20out%20that%20we%20could%20assume%20that%20any%20other%20element%20that%20appeared%20in%20that%20schema%20set%20(for%20example%20UAP8)%20also%20requires%20that%20minimum%20build%20number%2C%20that%20is%20not%20guaranteed.%26nbsp%3BCustomer%20OS's%20are%20almost%20never%20up%20to%20date.%20We%20cannot%20build%2Frepackage%20without%20knowing%20this%20information.%26nbsp%3B%20Windows%20API%20documentation%20was%20always%20clear%20on%20applicability%2C%20but%20we%20are%20totally%20blind%20here.%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%3CSTRONG%3EProposal%3A%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FSTRONG%3EI%20propose%20that%20there%20should%20be%20a%20project%20to%20update%20the%20online%20documentation%20for%20the%20AppXManifest%20schema%20that%20includes%20an%20applicability%20statement%20for%20EVERY%20element.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%3CSTRONG%3EComments%3A%3C%2FSTRONG%3E%20Yeah%2C%20this%20is%20going%20to%20be%20a%20lot%20to%20ask%20for.%26nbsp%3B%20Chances%20are%20nobody%20at%20Microsoft%20even%20has%20an%20answer%20for%20ever%20case%20at%20this%20point.%26nbsp%3B%20But%20please%20put%20a%20stake%20in%20the%20ground%20and%20take%20this%20on.%26nbsp%3B%20You%20could%20even%20document%20it%20like%20this%3A%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%26nbsp%3B%3CSTRONG%3ECompatibility%3A%3C%2FSTRONG%3E%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%3CSTRONG%3E%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20Works%20on%3A%26nbsp%3B%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FSTRONG%3EOS%2010.0.xxxxxxx%20and%2011.0.yyyyyyy%20and%20above%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3B%20%3CSTRONG%3EPossibly%20works%20on%3A%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FSTRONG%3E%26nbsp%3B%20%26nbsp%3BOS%2010.0.zzzzzzz%20and%20above%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3Ewhich%20would%20be%20better%20than%20what%20we%20have%20today.%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%0A%3CP%3E%26nbsp%3B%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-2730808%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3ERe%3A%20Backward%20Compatibility%20and%20the%20AppXManifest%20Schema%20Sets%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-2730808%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EMoved%20to%20%3CA%20href%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fmsix%2Fbackward-compatibility-and-the-appxmanifest-schema-sets%2Fidi-p%2F2730807%23M268%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%3Ehttps%3A%2F%2Ftechcommunity.microsoft.com%2Ft5%2Fmsix%2Fbackward-compatibility-and-the-appxmanifest-schema-sets%2Fidi-p%2F2730807%23M268%3C%2FA%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E
MVP

STATEMENT: The community desperately needs documentation on what features of MSIX work on what versions of the OS.  

 

Description: It is not possible to know what the minimum version OS is required to make use of one of the many possible elements/attributes that are described in the many AppXManifest file schemas.  At best, we might find a blog post about a new item that mentions a minimum build number.  And while it might work out that we could assume that any other element that appeared in that schema set (for example UAP8) also requires that minimum build number, that is not guaranteed. Customer OS's are almost never up to date. We cannot build/repackage without knowing this information.  Windows API documentation was always clear on applicability, but we are totally blind here. 

 

Proposal: I propose that there should be a project to update the online documentation for the AppXManifest schema that includes an applicability statement for EVERY element.

 

Comments: Yeah, this is going to be a lot to ask for.  Chances are nobody at Microsoft even has an answer for ever case at this point.  But please put a stake in the ground and take this on.  You could even document it like this:

      Compatibility:

            Works on:  OS 10.0.xxxxxxx and 11.0.yyyyyyy and above

            Possibly works on:    OS 10.0.zzzzzzz and above

which would be better than what we have today.

 

 

1 Reply