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

Re: Comments on XML 1.0 5th edition -- version or edition

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:56:38 +0000
To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
Cc: xml-editor@w3.org
Message-ID: <f5b7i6y9yrt.fsf@hildegard.inf.ed.ac.uk>

Hash: SHA1

James Clark wrote:

> The result is that many specs that reference XML 1.0 aren't prepared
> for such a change.

Any reference to an undated spec. amounts to a blank cheque, and as
such can be abused.  But any implementation of any spec. which itself
has one or more undated dependencies can _never_ be expected to change
instantaneously.  Any such implementation should always make clear
what version of the various dependencies it is implemented against,
and, given that it does so, it continues to be conformant regardless
of what happens in newer versions of those specs.  So I don't think
the situation is as bad as you suggest.

Having said that, it would of course have been great if XML 1.1 had
effectively superseded XML 1.0 in the market, in which case XML 1.0 5e
wouldn't have been necessary, but (and you discussed this in your
subsequent interchange with Liam Quin) as we know that didn't happen,
and that in turn meant that the prospects for an XML 1.2 were. . .not

Thanks in any case,

- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 15:57:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:46 UTC