W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: clause 2.2

From: François Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:02:55 -0400
To: "'Karlsson Kent - keka'" <keka@im.se>
Cc: <xml-editor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002b01c01c09$c00dd7f0$d78011ac@fyergeau2.intra.alis.com>
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
Received on Monday, 11 September 2000 12:16:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:31 GMT