- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:55:41 -0400
- To: xml-editor@w3.org
On its merit, I'll need more time to consider this proposal. Maybe it would be a reasonable thing for XML 1.1. Maybe it wouldn't. However, I strongly object to adding this as an erratum to XML 1.0. It is not an erratum. There is no room for this proposal in XML 1.0. The XML 1.0 working group knew what they were doing and made a deliberate decision. They did not make a mistake. Pewrhaps their decision was unwise, which is a different issue that could be resolved in a new version of XML. However, the use of the errata process to reopen asked and answered questions must be eschewed. Regretabbly there is precedent for using errata to change the clear language of the spec (the namespace URI for the xml prefix). However, this is a horrid decision that should never have happened. Let's not repeat that mistake now. What you propose is a genuine change to XML, not an erratum. It requires a new version of XML. Let's not pretend we're just putting a band-aid on the spec when in fact we're doing major surgery without anesthesia. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002) http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xmljava http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0201771861/cafeaulaitA
Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 09:05:21 UTC