- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:12:24 -0500
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.at>, www-tag@w3.org
On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 08:40, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > At 2:24 PM +0200 6/12/04, Jacek Kopecky wrote: > > >1) specifications that build on XML should tie themselves to XML 1 or > >just XML, and already existing Recommendations should issues erratas to > >that effect; > >2) it must be clarified in the Infoset specification that it isn't tied > >to any particular XML version (or XML 1 sub-version); > > In other words, you want to rewrite history. I'm quite sympathetic to this point... I'd like to know where it should be discussed, because www-tag is not the place. The point about whether this is a good or bad candidate for an erratum; i.e. it's a process issue, which is out of scope for the TAG: "The TAG should not consider administrative, process, or organizational policy issues of W3C, which are generally addressed by the W3C Advisory Committee, Advisory Board, and Team." -- http://www.w3.org/2001/07/19-tag > No, this simply will not > work. When this has been done (notably with the namespaces in XML > erratum retroactively claiming xmlns:prefix attributes are in a > namespace) it's been a major hassle, and a source of interoperability > issues between different specifications. > > What you suggest might have been a good idea at one point, and if we > could go back in time and change the specs before they were released, > maybe this would make sense. But obviously we can't do that. Let's > not pretend the specs says something other than what they do say. If > these specs are incompatible with XML 1.1, then they need to be > revised: Infoset 1.1, Schemas 1.1, XPath 1.1, etc. Some of these are > already in development. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 14 June 2004 12:11:42 UTC