W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Updated compatible versioning strategies document (section 5 Forwards Compatible ACTION-107)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:42:49 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCA4A6C83.7B5BE6E4-ON8525744B.006BCB58-8525744B.006C2FBB@lotus.com>

Dan Connolly writes:

> I'm reasonably happy to see the XML 1.1 story incorporated.
> Noah raises some interesting points about the historical details,
> but I doubt that treating them fully is worth the screenspace
> it would take.

I think I agree on that, though if there were an easy way it would be 
interesting.  At the risk of repeating my self, let me re-emphasize that 
my actual point was only indirectly about XML 1.0;  it was specifically 
the claim in the following that the change had been "identified as minor":

"A good example of an incompatible changed identified as a minor change is 
XML 1.1"

I'm trying to make the case that there's nothing in any of the pertinent 
XML Recommendations that claims that the change in question is "minor".  I 
suggest we correct that misstatement, regardless of whether or not it's 
worth telling in detail the story of how XML 1.0 changed between Editions 
2 & 3, or whether we want to say any more than the drafts already say 
about XML 1.1.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 19:42:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:57 GMT