Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...> > > I still haven't been convinced of the need for Blueberry, but I do want to propose something in the event this goes through: > > I think there's a way to limit the damage this does to the existing infrastructure. Whatever the eventual identifier is chosen for Blueberry (version="1.1", unicode="3.1", etc.) I think it should be a *fatal error* to use this identifier in a document that does not actually use any of the newly introduced characters in an XML name somewhere. > > In other words, if a document can be an XML 1.0 document, it must be an XML 1.0 document. > I can see a good reason for doing what you suggest, and I sympathise with your comments but the fact is that your proposal would turn a trivial implementation change into something much more difficult. It could also have a performance impact, so is unlikely to be popular with Parser developers. Wouldn't a better solution be one of education and market forces? Just like most people write backwards-compatible HTML today, most people will continue to write backwards-compatible XML tomorrow for the simple reason that they want it to be interoperable. Regards ~Rob
|
