Re: XML 1.1 backwards compatibility

/ Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> was heard to say:
| My memory is that the big reason we took out the C1 control
| characters from 1.1 was that folks like Rick Jelliffe wanted
| them to be an error so that we'd be able to catch more
| encoding errors.

Right, but I thought that only arose after a draft that we published
where the C0 control characters (except &0; of course) were allowed to
appear literally. When we changed things so that the C0 control chars
had to be escaped, didn't we provide what Rick Jelliffe wanted?

| [I was always dubious of that argument/decision, but maybe
| I'm remembering things wrong/incompletely too.]
|
| What's the impetus now behind your rethinking this?

I'm just tired of listening to comments to the effect that we've done
the most horribly evil thing known to man by making XML 1.1 not
backwards compatible with 1.0. The fact that the incompatability
effects no real documents and only 0.0000001% of all 1.0 documents
that are ever likely to exist seems irrelevant.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.