Re: Require XML version?

Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> 
> In message <3380E5B2.123AC088@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Paul Prescod writes:
> > Is it really useful to make the XML version declaration optional? Our
> 
> The version is only optional if the <?XML...?> is omitted.  Any document
> which announces it it XML has to have a version number XML-LANG [23][24][25]
> 
> > experience with the Web says that it will be hardly ever used if it is.
> > XML processors will not be able to depend on it just as HTML processors
> > cannot. What is the rationale for having it be optional? Even valid XML
> > documents need not declare their XML versions.

Perhaps true of HTML.  In VRML, failure to put the header with 
version will cause the world to die a draconian death.  So, 
folks do deal with it and editors put it in automatically. 
Interesting bit, it is actually a required comment.

BTW:  the VRML experience is one to look at where a minimalist 
language uses "parse or die" tactics.  When casting about for 
XML pro/cons based on "experience" one will do well to remember 
HTML isn't the only framework language out there.  In fact, 
reference implementations, test suites, and content lifecycle 
problems based on software cycle desyncs are getting to be hot topics.

len

Received on Tuesday, 20 May 1997 18:57:46 UTC