W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: References Re: What are the requirements/problems? Re: Working on New Styles for W3C Specifications

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 10:07:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE9B8CE.8070402@gmx.de>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: spec-prod@w3.org
On 2011-12-15 05:21, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>
> On 12/14/2011 5:02 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> Well, for a change I'll have to agree with Marcos. Not adopting XML
>> 1.1 blindly -- good. Pretending XML 1.0 5th edition does not exist --
>> not good.
>
> I know this seems somewhat off topic, but... we didn't ignore it. Each
> edition of XML 1.0 is a W3C Recommendation. You can claim conformance to
> any or all. That family of standards worked its way up the editions
> until one of them broke our ecosystem. Then we stopped. This is
> legitimate. It is not capricious.
>
> It is not sufficient nor reasonable to say 'update everything' to match
> an incompatible change in an underlying standard. In particular, in this
> case, there was no remaining working group with the charter to do so.
> This happens ALL THE TIME. The W3C / ANSI / ISO / ECMA / IETF / ... set
> of interactions is so mind-bogglingly complicated that after 25 years of
> working in standards I still can't keep it straight. So... in my opinion
> there must be a way to easily and consistently reference both "this and
> all future versions" of a specification and "this and ONLY this version"
> of a specification.

But, in this concrete case, how does it help? Are there XML parsers that 
can be switched to a XML1.0(4) mode?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 09:08:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:18 GMT