W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > January to March 2008

Quick observation

From: Joe Kesselman (the address IS real) <keshlam-nospam@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 00:38:55 -0500
Message-ID: <47B3D3EF.1030702@comcast.net>
To: xml-editor@w3.org

It seems we've gotten out of the habit of including a rationalle section 
  for errata entries. May I suggest that someone go back and add one to 
E09 and later?

While the intended effect is clear, I'm sometimes having real trouble 
understanding why a change is considered an erratum worthy of being 
patched back into XML 1.0, at the risk of confusing incompatability with 
existing 1.0 processors, rather than a new feature that belongs in 1.1 
(or perhaps 1.05, if folks aren't ready to move all the way to 1.1).

A formal rationalle might go a long way toward helping us understand the 
reasoning behind that decision. The absence of one makes this reader 
nervous about whether a change is well justified.

Thanks for considering this...

-- 
() ASCII Ribbon Campaign  | Joe Kesselman
/\ Stamp out HTML e-mail! | System architexture and kinetic poetry
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 05:39:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:38 GMT