[Bug 5202] Part 2 Incompatibilities

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5202





------- Comment #3 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com  2007-10-16 23:07 -------
Michael Kay wrote:

> Is there an incompatibility? I don't think
> we need to mention that a 1.0 schema document
> is in error if it uses precisionDecimal
> and a 1.1 schema document isn't, because
> that's true of every new feature we add.

Indeed, and I assumed that to be the sort of incompatibility we would want to
list.  I can see it either way.  If you're just worrying about breaking
backwards compatibility, then this stuff need not be listed.  If you're worried
about both forward and backwards compatibility, then indeed the new features
would need to be listed.  So, in structures, we'd need to say that (A?, any) is
now legal, where before it wasn't.

Is it clear that what was wanted was only a list of
backwards-incompatibilities?  If so, I'm not sure the XML 1.1 names belong
there.  Perhaps I'm not thinking clearly, but I thought that the only backwards
incompatibilities were at the Infoset level.  In other words, I thought that
every legal XML 1.0 character was a legal XML 1.1 character. 

At the very least, I think that whatever list we supply should be introduced
with an explanation of what sorts of incompatibilities it includes, and which
ones it doesn't.  Thanks.

Noah

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2007 23:07:46 UTC