Re: 5th edition is not a new edition; it's a major new version

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Henry S. Thompson <> wrote:

> The word 'erratum' is perhaps misleading in this context.  This is a
> change, but an allowed change: the changes in XML 1.0 5th Edition fall
> into class 3 from section 7.6.2 Classes of Changes to a Recommendation
> [3], as they affect conformance without introducing new features.

I do not believe class 3 applies here. This is a change that adds new
features, specifically support for additional languages in name
characters. They also enable undefined Unicode characters to be used,
musical symbols, and other things that would have been originally
excluded even if Unicode 5.0 predated XML 1.0.

> We have brought this forward because we believe the benefits outweigh
> the costs, based on a number of efforts to sample the likely response.
> Please let us know if you are satisfied with this response.

I am not satisfied with this response. My original comments stand.
This is an abuse of process, actively harmful to interoperability,
imposes significant extra work on vendors, and reduces the net
usability of XML.

Elliotte Rusty Harold

Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 14:22:54 UTC