• From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 13:17:55 -0400

> > XML was specifically designed to be stable on the
> > order of thousands of years.
> 
> I would be very interested to hear the views of the 
> members of the original XML WG as to the truth of 
> this assertion.

Here's what Tim Bray said on this list on April 4, 2001:

"In the closing days of getting XML 1.0 out the door, a 
lot of *reasonable* requests for enhancements were, in 
good software engineering style, kiboshed as being "for 
1.1".  Once 1.0 got out the door, everyone developed a 
strong case of (healthy IMHO) paranoia about screwing 
with the thing, and personally I'd be astounded to see 
anyone take on XML 1.1 in my lifetime; the cost is very high and the
need doesn't seem that great..." 

(Hope it's okay to quote you Tim.)  /Roger

• Follow-Ups:
  • Blueberry/Unicode/XML
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• References:
  • Presumption of XML's Stability (was RE: XML Blueberry (non-ASCII namecharacters in Japan))
    • From: Mike.Champion@S...

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Blueberry (non-ASCII name characters in Japan)
• Next by Date: RE: OS other than Win
• Previous by thread: Presumption of XML's Stability (was RE: XML Blueberry (non-ASCII namecharacters in Japan))
• Next by thread: Blueberry/Unicode/XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread