- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 09:37:14 -0700
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.at>, "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> 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 parser > 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 1.0. 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