• From: Michael Sokolov <sokolov@i...>
• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>
• Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:43:57 -0500

>> I think the XML 2.0 spec should have a 'Compatibility' section in it that
>> says if you want your XML 2.0 document to be valid XML 1.0, then take note
>> of the following ... .  One of the things it would mention is comments.
> That's certainly worth considering. Perhaps there should be two
> levels? a basic level with no XML declaration that is XML 1.0
> compatible, and a level with<?xml version='2.0'>  that is not?
>
I started trying to work out use cases for backwards compatibility (old 
documents, new tools / old tools / new documents), and realized I don't 
have enough experience (or patience?) to propose anything definitive or 
thoroughly considered.  Still I feel that the success of this whole 
enterprise will very much hinge on getting the nuances of the 
compatibility decisions just right, so smart people: please think deeply 
about this!

-Mike Sokolov

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>

• References:
  • Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@i...>