• To: Amy Lewis <amyzing@t...>
• Subject: Re: Version numbering, requirements
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 21:02:39 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <20011216184211.GA4778@t...> from Amy Lewis at "Dec 16,2001 01:42:11 pm"

Amy Lewis scripsit:

> Applied to XML, any change that adds to the set of well-formed
> documents is probably a feature addition.  Any change that makes
> previously well-formed documents ill-formed is breaking existing code,
> so it's a major version.  The Blueberry proposal, and alternates
> suggested here, then, both seem to represent XML 2.0.  

I agree in principle.  However, the current draft does not propose
making any previously well-formed documents ill-formed.  The
paragraph on normalization checking would only do so if the
"fatal error" option were chosen, and that is as yet an open
issue.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@c...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

• References:
  • Version numbering, requirements
    • From: Amy Lewis <amyzing@t...>

• Prev by Date: terra incognita
• Next by Date: Re: XML and mainframes, yet again (was RE: Somecomments on the 1.1 draft)
• Previous by thread: Version numbering, requirements
• Next by thread: ANN: New book on XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread