[colinpauladams@googlemail.com: Re: Comments on XML 1.0 5th edition]

I asked Colin for some clarification, and this was the result.

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/

attached mail follows:

I just do not accept that there is a constraint that you cannot change
the version number (to 1.0.1 for instance).

Do you really think that it was because XML 1.1 was labelled 1.1 that
it hasn't widely caught on? I am sure that is not the case.

If you make the proposed change as it stands, there are two possibilities:

1) People will accept it, and everyone will upgrade their XML parsers, or
2) They won't accept it.

If you make the change and label it 1.0.1 there are exactly the same
two possibilities. I would predict a higher acceptance rate in that
case (I know for sure that that will be the case in the Eiffel
community).

But now users will know where they stand.

On 29/02/2008, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 10:44:42AM +0000, Colin Adams wrote:
>  > I would change the version number.
>
>
> Thanks, Colin.
>
>  We tried that with XML 1.1, and the XML Core WG wasn't persuaded
>  that it should go there again.  Not also that an XML 1.0 processor
>  is required to reject documents labeled XML 1.1 or 1.2... so we
>  would at the very least have to revert the erratum to XML 1.0 that
>  made that be a fatal errorA  Which would be another substantive
>  change to XML 1.0...
>
>
>  > Otherwise you can have XML that was previously invalid become valid.
>  > This means older processors will raise an error, and newer ones will not.
>
>
> It's a possibility with any substantive change.  Why the objections
>  to this one in particular?
>
>  And, given the constraint that we can't change the version number,
>  what would you do?
>
>  Thaks,
>
>
>  Liam
>
>  --
>  Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
>  http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
>