Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)

[Joel Rees <rees@server.mediafusion.co.jp>]

Ann,

Putting words in someone else's mouth:

(1) There are a lot of older parsers that will still be serviceable for
documents that do not require blueberry.

(2) If we publish blueberry as the new version of XML, then it can be
expected that a lot of not-well-in-formed practioners will simply label
there docs as the newest version, thinking to be up-to-date.

(3) Except for the label, these documents would have no problems with the
older software.

(4) Because of the label, many people will think their systems are suddenly
broken.

(5) A lot of people get upset, make a lot of noise, and go out and buy all
the latest software from the biggest names, just to be safe, and re-tool
their entire systems for no particular reason at all. Finances and time that
could be used in the advancement of the general technology get wasted in a
side-path.

Is that an accurate outline of the concerns, Elliotte? No, I'm sure it
isn't. Correct me.

Ann Navarro asked

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

At 10:59 PM 7/22/2001 -0400, John Cowan wrote:


>We are not talking about not labelling.  The issue is: should a document
>labelled Blueberry be required to actually exploit at least one Blueberry
>feature, or is it all right to take a well-formed XML 1.0 document
>and label it Blueberry without further change?

Why wouldn't it be ok?

Any intersection between the sets of well-formed XML 1.0 documents and XML
"Blueberry" documents can be labelled as one or the other, or both (just as
a valid document can also be labelled well-formed -- that particular
intersection is not mutually exclusive).

Ann