• From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:25:14 -0400 (EDT)

David Brownell scripsit:

> Are you saying the proposal is that this should be an erratum
> to the "XML 1.0" specification?  Or instead that this should
> be "XML 1.1" ?

This is a process question that I am not equipped to answer, though
someday I may be so equipped.  :-)

The overall result is that certain documents which were not WF
before become WF; no WF documents become not WF.  It is an
upward compatible extension of XML 1.0:1998.

I emphasize that this document has, at present, nothing to do
with the W3C, though I would be pleased if it did someday.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@c...
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Re: why distinctions within XHTML?
• Next by Date: [XT] XSL output question
• Previous by thread: First draft of proposed XML TC for Unicode 3.0 (unofficial)
• Next by thread: Re: First draft of proposed XML TC for Unicode 3.0 (unofficial)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread