[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
- To: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:37:59 -0800
John Cowan wrote:
> > 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.
For that there is a precedent in CSS1 [1]. It is a "revision" with no
outward sign of its update except in its subtitle, in the "Status of
this document" section, and the addition of Appendix F. "Edition" is
an attractive metaphor, but using it means introducing another term
or vector, like adding an aisle at a new angle in a bookstore. Of
course, I defer to the editors, thanks.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1
--
Susan Lesch
Intern, W3C
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
|
