- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:42:49 -0400
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Dan Connolly writes: > I'm reasonably happy to see the XML 1.1 story incorporated. > Noah raises some interesting points about the historical details, > but I doubt that treating them fully is worth the screenspace > it would take. I think I agree on that, though if there were an easy way it would be interesting. At the risk of repeating my self, let me re-emphasize that my actual point was only indirectly about XML 1.0; it was specifically the claim in the following that the change had been "identified as minor": "A good example of an incompatible changed identified as a minor change is XML 1.1" I'm trying to make the case that there's nothing in any of the pertinent XML Recommendations that claims that the change in question is "minor". I suggest we correct that misstatement, regardless of whether or not it's worth telling in detail the story of how XML 1.0 changed between Editions 2 & 3, or whether we want to say any more than the drafts already say about XML 1.1. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 19:42:59 UTC