RE: xml11Names-46

> Here, APIs for XML already use UNICODE strings to represent the Names

What?  You have a list of important implementations and their
implementation details?

> an XML parser and serializer, I would just use UTF-16 or whatever to

Oh, I see, you are speculating based on what you think you might
possibly do if you wrote your own parser.

> I don't even think DOM should be changed, for instance, except in
> and serializer parts where the DOM implementation should be able to
> indicate supported versions, if that is not already present there.

Great; we have literally millions of developers depending on shipped
code which implements these specs.  Let's just *assume* that all of the
implementations do things a particular way.

> Rewriting history is bad when you change the intents, but I don't
> believe it was the intent of XML Schema 1.0 to limit itself to XML

I hope to God it wasn't their intent to have the scope apply *beyond*
XML 1.0, since there were no other versions of XML at the time.  And if
that was their intent, they failed anyway.

I think it's a profoundly bad idea to rewrite history by pretending that
specs which have shipped to millions of people are really meant to
support a new spec which breaks backwards compatibility.

Received on Sunday, 13 June 2004 12:37:18 UTC