W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: References Re: What are the requirements/problems? Re: Working on New Styles for W3C Specifications

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 00:02:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE92B0D.9000405@gmx.de>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:16 UTC