Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 10:14 AM -0400 10/25/02, John Cowan wrote: >Read the errata page. Oh joy. Another erratum that rewrites history because the working group changed its mind. Sorry. I don't accept such errata as normative. The spec is clear an unambiguous. There is no plausible argument that the original spec made a mistake. The people who wrote the spec knew what they were writing and why they were writing it. Now, retroactively, somebody's decided they were wrong, and they're going to fix it. Sorry. This can't be done in an erratum. XML 1.0 says what it says. Parsers are designed around it. If you're going to change the BNF grammar, then you've invented a new language. XML 1.0 plus errata is no longer XML 1.0. It is provably true that <?xml version="1.1"?><root /> is a well-formed XML 1.0 document. -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | XML in a Nutshell, 2nd Edition (O'Reilly, 2002) | | http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian2/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0596002920/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
|
