• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: We need SAX features to say a parser supports XML
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:32:24 +1000
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F8040EF6CE@R... t.com> <p04330108b9df1188021b@[192.168.254.4]>

From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...>

> Errata can fix editorial mistakes. 

> However, errata cannot fix design mistakes.  

In the ISO world there seems be a distinction made between an
erratum (i.e., an error in transmitting what the committee decided)
and a corrigendum (i.e., a correction being made when a spec is 
somehow broken), IIRC.  The former is trivial to fix, and the
second requires more work.

Normally, of course, committees try to use the easiest method
and will say "of course, what we *meant* to say was ...".

In the W3C world there is nothing in between an erratum
and a version up, so errata can be expected to also contain
corrections relating to exigencies.  

This is a procedural issue: you buy into an organization's technology,
and you may also have to live with their procedures too. 

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: We need SAX features to say a parser supports XML
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: We need SAX features to say a parser supports XML
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• Next by Date: Re: [ANN] "Future of Software and Databases" NetSeminar (December 3)
• Previous by thread: XML versions and conformance (was RE: We need SAX featuresto say a parser supports XML)
• Next by thread: Re: We need SAX features to say a parser supports XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread