Re: stepping backward

At 11:11 AM 6/2/00 -0700, Sam Hunting wrote:
>True, but -- "legitimate" (a) in the current version of the Namespaces
>Spec, and (b) assuming there's no other "black box" process that
>over-rides that legitimacy.

I certainly hope (b) doesn't apply, and I would be surprised if it did in
this case.

>As I understand the principle, whatever breaks existing documents is
>immoral. This applies whether the version number increments or not.

I think you're overstating things a bit here.  While some folks have
thumped on the morality of introducing change, the XML version number is
there to provide a mechanism to permit presently unspecified change:

>The version number "1.0" should be used to indicate 
>conformance to this version of this specification; it 
>is an error for a document to use the value "1.0" if 
>it does not conform to this version of this specification. 
>It is the intent of the XML working group to give later 
>versions of this specification numbers other than "1.0", 
>but this intent does not indicate a commitment to produce 
>any future versions of XML, nor if any are produced, to use 
>any particular numbering scheme. Since future versions are 
>not ruled out, this construct is provided as a means to 
>allow the possibility of automatic version recognition, 
>should it become necessary. Processors may signal an error 
>if they receive documents labeled with versions they do not 
>support. 

I'd call that fair warning, not a problem for legacy documents.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com

Received on Friday, 2 June 2000 14:19:48 UTC