[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Well-formed Blueberry
- From: Rob Lugt <email@example.com>
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 15:25:13 +0100
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I still haven't been convinced of the need for Blueberry, but I do want to
propose something in the event this goes through:
> I think there's a way to limit the damage this does to the existing
infrastructure. Whatever the eventual identifier is chosen for Blueberry
(version="1.1", unicode="3.1", etc.) I think it should be a *fatal error* to
use this identifier in a document that does not actually use any of the
newly introduced characters in an XML name somewhere.
> In other words, if a document can be an XML 1.0 document, it must be an
XML 1.0 document.
I can see a good reason for doing what you suggest, and I sympathise with
your comments but the fact is that your proposal would turn a trivial
implementation change into something much more difficult. It could also
have a performance impact, so is unlikely to be popular with Parser
Wouldn't a better solution be one of education and market forces? Just like
most people write backwards-compatible HTML today, most people will continue
to write backwards-compatible XML tomorrow for the simple reason that they
want it to be interoperable.