Re: SVG12: XML 1.0 vs XML 1.1

* Robin Berjon wrote:
>Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/ does not make much
>> sense with respect to XML 1.0 vs XML 1.1. For conformance it is required
>> that only XML 1.1 can be used to author SVG content, yet all examples in
>> the draft are XML 1.0 documents and thus non-conforming.
>
>That is not correct: all XML 1.0 instances are well-formed XML 1.1 
>instances.

Please consider me dissatisfied with this response; a data object cannot
be a XML 1.0 document and a XML 1.1 document at the same time, these are
mutually exclusive properties. It's disappointing that the SVG Working
Group insists on this obviously technically incorrect position.

>> Some sections also refer to certain aspects of XML 1.0 rather than
>> depend on the XML version of the document, for example, some things are
>> defined to be XML Names without saying under which definition (there are
>> four) or if an attempt is made to discuss it, XML 1.0 is referenced
>> which means that XML 1.1 is of little use. Please subsantively revise
>> the draft in this regard (as I've requested before...)
>
>There were a few stray references to XML 1.0 which meant to be XML 1.1, 
>they have been fixed.

Please consider me dissatisfied with this response aswell; without any
detail on the changes, I cannot decide whether the changes are satis-
factory to me, and fixing stray references to XML 1.0 does not address
my concern about unclear data typing at all.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 12:26:32 UTC