RE: clause 2.2

clause 2.2Karlsson Kent  wrote:

      See also the suggestion I submitted today regarding clause 2.3 (cf
E62),
      where I suggest not to potentially make (reasonable) current documents
invalid,
      but to have a "for compatibility" sentence instead.
    I think you misread the definition of "for compatibility".  As opposed
to "for interoperability", "for compatibility" is not a non-binding
recommendation that is to be obeyed only if you want to retain
  Ok, so I meant "for interoperability".
Your suggestion still breaks compatibility with SGML+WebSGML, which E62 is
meant to fix. No amount of handwaving can change that. "For
interoperability" is only for things that may not work with SGML software
pre-dating WebSGML; allowing S instead of #20 would break even post-WebSGML
software.
--
François Yergeau