W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-core-wg@w3.org > February 2005

RE: XML 1.1 backwards compatibility

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:50:51 -0500
Message-ID: <F13E1BF26B19BA40AF3C0DE7D4DA0C03031E75CB@ati-mail01.arbortext.local>
To: <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>

My memory is that the big reason we took out the C1 control
characters from 1.1 was that folks like Rick Jelliffe wanted
them to be an error so that we'd be able to catch more
encoding errors.

[I was always dubious of that argument/decision, but maybe
I'm remembering things wrong/incompletely too.]

What's the impetus now behind your rethinking this?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Saturday, 12 February, 2005 8:36
> To: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
> Subject: XML 1.1 backwards compatibility
> The only backwards incompatibility in XML 1.1 is the fact that we
> don't allow the C1 control characters, right? And we only removed
> them because for a brief period we allowed the C0 control characters,
> right? But then we removed the C0 control characters, right?
> So what happens if we erratum/second edition the 1.1 spec so that
> it allows the C1 control characters?
> Then 1.1 w/erratum or second edition is not backwards compatible with
> itself but is backwards compatible with XML 1.0, right?
> Worth thinking about? I dunno. Maybe I'm forgetting something else.
Received on Saturday, 12 February 2005 13:55:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:34 UTC