W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Possible changes for XML 2nd Edition

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 11:15:42 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000525094848.01190ed0@pophost.arbortext.com>
To: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>, John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Cc: xml-editor@w3.org, w3t-comm@w3.org
As chair of the XML Core WG, I'd like to suggest that this discussion
shouldn't be had on xml-dev.

At 20:37 2000 05 24 -0800, Susan Lesch wrote:
>John Cowan wrote:
>
>> > May I suggest that what
>> > you call the 2d edition follow the naming convention in XML 1.0, and
>> > be titled "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1" or "1.0.1," whatever
>> > number suits the editors?
>>
>>A change to the XML version number would make existing 1.0 XML
>>parsers unable to cope.  Since we are not making incompatible
>>changes, a new version would be inappropriate.
>
>For that there is a precedent in CSS1 [1]. It is a "revision" with no 
>outward sign of its update except in its subtitle, in the "Status of 
>this document" section, and the addition of Appendix F. "Edition" is 
>an attractive metaphor, but using it means introducing another term 
>or vector, like adding an aisle at a new angle in a bookstore. Of 
>course, I defer to the editors, thanks.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1
>-- 
>Susan Lesch
>Intern, W3C
>
>
>***************************************************************************
>This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
>To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
>List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>***************************************************************************
>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 12:16:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:30 GMT