• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:01:45 +0000

On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:43:57 -0500
Michael Sokolov <sokolov@i...> wrote:
mpatible, 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!


The MK option struck a nice balance for me.
If you want to use 'old' tools with new documents transform them
into current standards.

That leaves a caveat that new syntax/semantics must be capable
of being transformed 'back' into current syntax.

Far less onerous than insisting on backwards compatibility.
And a good stopgap. 


-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• 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...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Michael Sokolov <sokolov@i...>