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 Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 19:42:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:56 UTC