Best Practices for Versioning WIT Packages in WASI Proposals

[Mossaka]

Hey there,

I am raising this issue to discuss whether or not we have a convention on naming WIT packages for WASI proposals, or should we have a convention for that?

With the launch of WASI 0.2, I observered that all WASI 0.2 proposals, including wasi:cli and wasi:http, are under the version v0.2.0. This approach is straightforward and understandable.

However, ambiguity arises with WIT packages in proposals that are at an early phase (1/0). The current practice seems to version these as v0.1.0, as seen in wasi-cloud-core's world.wit. This could potentially lead to confusion, implying a connection with WASI Preview 1 instead of indicating the package's development stage.

The aim of this issue is to discuss and establish best practices for versioning WIT packages in the context of WASI, especially for those not yet integrated into a preview release. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated to ensure clarity and consistency across the ecosystem.

Thank you.

[pchickey]

Prior to the 0.2.0 release, we used 0.2.0-rc-<iso 8601 date> as the format for versions in the cli/http and friends. If you want to imply something less stable than rc and not have to keep bumping versions as the contents change, you could use 0.2.0-draft.