- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:32:44 -0400
- To: Martin Brunecky <mbrunecky@onerealm.com>
- CC: "'Misha.Wolf@reuters.com'" <Misha.Wolf@reuters.com>, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, unicode@unicode.org, unicore@unicode.org, www-international@w3.org
Martin Brunecky wrote: > One thing I find disturbing about the REQUIREMENTS is that it does not > address the compatibility issues. Are the "blueberry" documents upwards > compatible with the existing, XML 1.0 compliant documents? You can change an XML 1.0 document to a Blueberry document by changing something about it to mark it Blueberry (the Core WG hasn't decided just what). You can change a Blueberry document to 1.0 by removing the marker, provided you do not exploit Blueberry features. Documents marked as Blueberry will be rejected by 1.0 parsers. Blueberry parsers will surely (as a practical matter) accept 1.0 documents as well. It will be Good Practice, IMHO, not to mark a document Blueberry unless it exploits Blueberry features. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 13:33:03 UTC