- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:26:33 -0400
- To: <www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: w3c-xsl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-xsl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Kay Sent: Monday, 2007 October 29 11:42 To: www-xml-blueberry-comments@w3.org Cc: 'Jim Melton'; 'W3C XQuery'; w3c-xsl-wg@w3.org Subject: RE: XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 > After considering various other ideas, the XML Core WG wants to suggest > the possibility of changing XML 1.0 to relax the restrictions on > element and attribute names thereby providing in XML 1.0 the > major end user benefit currently achievable only by using XML 1.1. > The XML Core WG assumes that if such an erratum were to be > passed into XML 1.0, the XML 1.1 Recommendation would eventually be > deprecated by the W3C. I think you're making things worse rather than better. Variety creates complexity and cost; the problem with XML 1.1 is that the cost exceeds the benefit (and falls in a different place), and you can't solve that by increasing the number of flavours even more. Instead of two versions of XML, users and implementors would be faced with three versions, two of which call themselves version 1.0 though they are clearly different. I don't think it helps anyone to pretend this is an erratum. You can't manage change by sweeping it under the carpet. It is a new version of the specification. I would be strongly inclined to leave XML 1.0 as it is, and rebrand XML 1.1 as an "approved variant for use in specialized applications", or something to that effect. Those who really need Ethiopian can then make a choice whether to use XML 1.1 or work around the limitations of 1.0 (which isn't very difficult, after all). Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 17:29:24 UTC