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

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, Julian

Received on Thursday, 15 December 2011 09:08:05 UTC