Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 6:37 PM -0500 1/13/04, Michael Champion wrote: >That poses a bit of a problem for the XML community -- is the >rational response to "fix" the bits of XML that people stumble over >[awaiting shrieks from the people who shot down XML 1.1], A patently false slander. The objections to XML 1.1 were that it was "fixing" things no one was actually stumbling over, and indeed making breakage and stumbling more likely in the future. If an XML 1.2 were introduced that actually improved XML, then a rational decision would need to be made comparing the benefits it offered vs. the cost of the transition. The problem with XML 1.1 was that this analysis was never made. Indeed several players argued that it was morally repugnant to even consider doing a cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, in my judgement the net benefit was negative even if the cost of transition had been zero. Now if you show us an XML 1.2 that is a genuine improvement over XML 1.0, then we can judge it on its own merits. Tim Bray's Skunkworks proposal might be a good place to start. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@m... Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003) http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
|
