Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Robin Berjon wrote: >>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. You're going to need detailed references here, for as far as I can tell from reading the XML 1.1 specification, an XML 1.0 document is indeed an XML 1.1 document as well. I see no contradiction there. >>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. Since the SVG specification now references XML 1.1 normatively throughout, it is clear that any mention of a data construct imported from XML is from XML 1.1. -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/Received on Monday, 20 June 2005 12:43:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:29:27 UTC