• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:39:55 -0800

At 05:01 PM 29/03/01 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>At 11:33 AM 3/29/01 -0500, Mike.Champion@S... wrote:
>>Thanks for looking this up!  But, uhhh,  "Note that the order of attribute 
>>specifications in a start-tag or empty-element tag is not significant" is 
>>pretty explicit...
>
>Sure - I was just pointing out that the rule was something of a latecomer 
>to XML 1.0, appearing only in the Second Edition.  It's certainly explicit, 
>but I think there's plenty of good reason to question why that was seen as 
>important enough to rate an explicit change to the spec.

Er, well, <blushing>attribute order is explicitly not sigificant
in SGML, and so everyone "just knew" that the same was true in
XML, and in fact all the software was written that way, and 
the 1.0 spec's failure to say so was a huge gaping 900-foot
plastic erratum, which is now fixed.</blushing> -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
    • From: Mike.Champion@S...
  • RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
• Next by Date: RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
• Previous by thread: Re: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
• Next by thread: RE: attribute order (RE: Syntax Sugar and XML information models)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread