Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
-----Original Message----- From: AndrewWatt2000@a... [mailto:AndrewWatt2000@a...] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 2:53 PM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: XML 1.0 (3rd Edition) (Was: XML-1.1 -- just ignore it) > XML 1.1 implies a progression from XML 1.0. To produce a "new" version of XML which will > likely go to REC in 2002 without namespaces seems absurd to me. > In the absence of namespace support let's recognize "XML 1.1" for what it is - XML 1.0, > 3rd Edition. And name it accordingly. Wellll, I agree with the sentiment but not the analysis. First, if there is to be ANY kind of change to XML in 2002, it will have to be a very small increment. XML itself (as its authors have acknowledged publicly) could not have been produced in the time it was under the current W3C process. "Internet time", for better or worse, died along with most of the .com's. Also, XML 1.1 as currently defined requires a new version label since it is not compatible with XML 1.0. An XML 1.0 parser will reject some set of well-formed XML 1.1 documents. The new version is needed so that XML 1.0 parsers don't even try to parse documents with guitar fret symbols or random Unicode name characters as element or attribute names. Truly random digression: Now that the ISO has taken on the task of rationalizing and standardizing the various alternative XML schema languages (see http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2001-12-13-a.html) I wonder whether there is any hope of THEM defining an International Standard that incorporates some sensible combination of XML 1.0, xml:base, and Namespaces .... Methinks I'm a gonna get flamed for that thought ...my only defense is too many late nights and early mornings communing with XML geeks in Orlando ... nevertheless, Ken Holman announced the ISO DSDL development at XML 2001 last night, and several beers later there was some buzz that maybe we're ready for "Spec Wars II: ISO Strikes Back" now that the Rebel Alliance has gotten complacent and bureaucratic. <grin> [usual disclaimer: my employers may be even more appalled than usual about these ravings ]
|
