- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:05:48 -0500
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Cc: www-forms-editor@w3.org, Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>, Forms WG <w3c-forms@w3.org>
Hi Steven, On 12/8/05, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote: > Most implementors seem to have adopted the measure of using the namespace > to identify the required processor, and for this reason have asked us to > change the namespace. Are you saying that XForms 1.0 documents cannot, in general, be processed by XForms 1.1 processors? If that is the case, then I agree that a new namespace may be desirable, at least for XForms due to it being an integrated language without access to a generic XML integration framework. But typically, a 1.0 to 1.1 change of a data format indicates forward compatibility - 1.0 documents can be processed by 1.1 processors - and to a lesser extent, backward compatibility - some 1.1 documents could be processed by 1.0 processors(*); XHTML is a good example of this. (*) though YMMV regarding definitions of "forward" and "backward" compatibility - some people use opposite definitions to what I used there Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 13:06:17 UTC