- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:53:42 -0600
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: spec-prod@w3.org
On 12/14/2011 4:16 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > I actually disagree. If 20120315 is a REC anyway. There are LOTS of > specs that need to reference a specific version of another spec. Look > at XHTML Modularization, for example. It references XML 1.0 Fourth > Edition even though there are later editions available. There were > important technical reasons for this. > > Are you saying that to implement XHTML Modularization I have to support whatever bugs are in XML Fourth Edition (forever), and I need to have a separate implementation of XML Fifth Edition (which does not interact with XHTML) for other XML documents? And that I can't ever update my XML Parser to XML.Next to be used with XHTML Modularization because XHTML forces me to implement Forth Edition? Yes. That's exactly what I am saying. In this case, XML Fifth Edition incorporated changes to the definition of NCNAME (or something) that would have broken faith with languages built atop XHTML M12N. And it is totally possible to write an XML processor / parser that supports fourth edition and later constraints, if you want. > >> Regardless, there needs to be a >> way to do this. Normatively. >> > If the above is true, then that is pretty bad. > -- Shane McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. +1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 22:54:12 UTC