On 2011-12-15 05:21, Shane McCarron wrote: > > > 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. But, in this concrete case, how does it help? Are there XML parsers that can be switched to a XML1.0(4) mode? Best regards, JulianReceived on Thursday, 15 December 2011 09:08:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:16 UTC