- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:21:00 -0600
- To: spec-prod@w3.org
On 12/14/2011 5:02 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > 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. I know this seems somewhat off topic, but... we didn't ignore it. Each edition of XML 1.0 is a W3C Recommendation. You can claim conformance to any or all. That family of standards worked its way up the editions until one of them broke our ecosystem. Then we stopped. This is legitimate. It is not capricious. It is not sufficient nor reasonable to say 'update everything' to match an incompatible change in an underlying standard. In particular, in this case, there was no remaining working group with the charter to do so. This happens ALL THE TIME. The W3C / ANSI / ISO / ECMA / IETF / ... set of interactions is so mind-bogglingly complicated that after 25 years of working in standards I still can't keep it straight. So... in my opinion there must be a way to easily and consistently reference both "this and all future versions" of a specification and "this and ONLY this version" of a specification. -- Shane McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. +1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 04:24:01 UTC