Re: XML Blueberry

[Jesus Quiroga <jquiroga@pobox.com>]

At 23:59 21/06/01 +0100, you wrote:
>John Cowan wrote
> > >
> > > <?xml version='1.01'?> isn't that bad, and it implies exactly what you
>say.
> >
> >
> > The Core WG has not yet decided whether changing the version number or
> > inventing some new kind of label is the Right Thing.
> >
> > Comments are solicited.
>
>I definitely think it would be appropriate for Blueberry to use a new
>version of XML.  In fact this is in keeping with the declared intent of the
>XML 1.0 WG:-
>
>"It is the intent of the XML working group to give later versions of this
>specification numbers other than "1.0", but this intent does not indicate a
>commitment to produce any future versions of XML, nor if any are produced,
>to use any particular numbering scheme" [1]
>
>As for the version number you adopt, I believe 1.1 is the most appropriate.
>Major revisions should be reserved for syntax changes <Heaven forbid />.


Perhaps it would be interesting to consider what other changes could
be bundled with these ones to get XML 1.1 (or Blueberry or whatever),
in order to have the minimum possible set of versions of XML to know,
teach, support and choose from.