- From: Jesús Quiroga <jquiroga@pobox.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 03:17:13 +0200
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Cc: www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org
My previous message lacked a subject line. Sorry, my mistake. John Cowan wrote: >Silent changes to XML 1.0 impose costs. Blueberry imposes costs only on >those who use it. I don't see it that way. Even if some XML 1.0 users don't want to convert to Blueberry, the universal interoperability that they take for granted will be destroyed anyway, and that's a potentially huge loss. So every existing XML user will be worse off just after the approval of a new XML version. The only choice left will be how and when to bear the cost. There are many other costs, imposed on those who write XML parsers, teach XML, write and publish books on XML, and so on. Even some future XML users will have to bear the cost of learning and using more than one XML flavor. >> Other possible >> changes that could improve XML should be considered, and some of them >> included in the new version. >The Core WG fears this would be a rathole we'd never escape from. I don't know if you can clarify that any further. It's difficult to know if the Core WG fears any extensive change to XML, the impact of extensive changes in XML acceptance, feature creep, or the probably tortuous and unsavory process to decide what changes to make. I still believe the next XML version should be way better than 1.0, and offer real gains to defray the costs that any new XML version will inevitably impose on many people, including all XML 1.0 users. Requirement #5 prevents this. That's why I suggested to consider any other valuable change for inclusion in Blueberry.
Received on Friday, 29 June 2001 21:19:54 UTC