- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:02:37 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, spec-prod@w3.org
On 2011-12-14 23:53, Shane McCarron wrote: > > > On 12/14/2011 4:16 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> >> >> I actually disagree. If 20120315 is a REC anyway. There are LOTS of >> specs that need to reference a specific version of another spec. Look >> at XHTML Modularization, for example. It references XML 1.0 Fourth >> Edition even though there are later editions available. There were >> important technical reasons for this. >> >> Are you saying that to implement XHTML Modularization I have to >> support whatever bugs are in XML Fourth Edition (forever), and I need >> to have a separate implementation of XML Fifth Edition (which does not >> interact with XHTML) for other XML documents? And that I can't ever >> update my XML Parser to XML.Next to be used with XHTML Modularization >> because XHTML forces me to implement Forth Edition? > > Yes. That's exactly what I am saying. In this case, XML Fifth Edition > incorporated changes to the definition of NCNAME (or something) that > would have broken faith with languages built atop XHTML M12N. And it is > totally possible to write an XML processor / parser that supports fourth > edition and later constraints, if you want. Well, for a change I'll have to agree with Marcos. Not adopting XML 1.1 blindly -- good. Pretending XML 1.0 5th edition does not exist -- not good. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 00:49:58 UTC