• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: is XML complete?
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:39:32 GMT
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F8040EF74E@R...>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

>the WG seems to act like doing a 2.0 is a given. 

I don't think it's a given.

The Core WG charter says:

  The WG will also study the advisability of a version 2.0 of the XML
  specification and may undertake the preparation of such a
  specification, if deemed advisable.

(http://www.w3.org/2001/12/xmlbp/xml-core-wg-charter.html#deliverables) [*]

I don't think we've done any serious study on this question yet.

I have heard a vast range of views on what XML 2.0 should be if there
is one, from a unification of XML 1.x + Namespaces + Infoset + no
substantive changes to a completely redesigned language.

[*] Mozilla's "view selection source" function is great for finding
anchors like this.

-- Richard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: is XML complete?
    • From: "Douglas and Elena Husemann" <husemann@c...>
  • Re: is XML complete?
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• References:
  • RE: is XML complete?
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML IDE on Linux
• Next by Date: Re: is XML complete?
• Previous by thread: RE: is XML complete?
• Next by thread: Re: is XML complete?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread