RE: Well-formed Blueberry

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

It also depends on whether or not the version number 
indicates a larger scope of changes beyond blueberry 
requirements.  Once the version bottle is uncorked, 
others have suggested more things be put in it, 
for example, namespaces.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

 > 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.

The trouble with this scheme is that it makes generation on the fly,
particularly by separate modules, difficult.

 > In other words, if a document can be an XML 1.0 document, it must be
 >  an XML 1.0 document.

I would certainly agree that it SHOULD, but MUST seems a bit severe.