W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Comments on XML 1.0 5th edition

From: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:33:23 -0400
To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Cc: xml-editor@w3.org
Message-ID: <20081017043323.GH22630@w3.org>

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:04:58AM +0700, James Clark wrote:
> My suggestion would be to do an XML 1.2 that changes XML 1.0 only by making
> the proposed 5th edition change to names, do a Namespaces 1.2 that
> references XML 1.2, and then deprecate XML 1.1 and XML Namespaces 1.1. I
> know that XML 1.1 didn't get much uptake, but I think that is partly because
> it also included many other changes, whose usefulness was not nearly as
> clear.

James, a quick -- and personal -- reply, not from the XML Core WG...

I originally went to the XML Core Working Group with a suggestion
almost exactly like yours, I think about 18 months ago.

After consulting with a number of the key implementors (although
not all), it quickly became clear that there was very limited
support for the idea of an XML 1.2, and indeed, there was no
willingness within XML Core to work on one.  It would probably
have been a failure.

So, this is an uneasy compromise, but it has already got more
implementor acceptance than 1.1 did, it seems.

The future of the namespace spec is indeed another matter.
Perhaps, if 1.0 5e goes ahead, including the change to the rule
about 1.x processors accepting 1.y documents, it might be
possible to do an XML 1.2 in the future, although I'm not
sure we (W3C and XML Core) really have resources for that right now.

I hope this helps to put things in context a bit.

Liam


-- 
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ * http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 04:33:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:40 GMT