[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- To: lesch@w3.org (Susan Lesch)
- Date: Wed, 24 May 100 23:09:36 -0400 (EDT)
Susan Lesch scripsit:
>
> John Cowan wrote:
>
> >This goes well beyond the goals of XML 1.0 2nd ed, which is not meant to
> >change radical things like your #3. It is simply a republication with
> >the errata incorporated of XML 1.0.
>
> So far, W3C technical publications [1] come in version numbers, part
> numbers, and Levels, but not in "editions." May I suggest that what
> you call the 2d edition follow the naming convention in XML 1.0, and
> be titled "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1" or "1.0.1," whatever
> number suits the editors?
A change to the XML version number would make existing 1.0 XML
parsers unable to cope. Since we are not making incompatible
changes, a new version would be inappropriate.
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org
Yes, I know the message date is bogus. I can't help it.
--me, on far too many occasions
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
