[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----Original Message-----
From: AndrewWatt2000@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2000@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 2:53 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: [xml-dev] XML 1.0 (3rd Edition) (Was: XML-1.1 -- just ignore it)
> XML 1.1 implies a progression from XML 1.0. To produce a "new" version of
XML which will
> likely go to REC in 2002 without namespaces seems absurd to me.
> In the absence of namespace support let's recognize "XML 1.1" for what it
is - XML 1.0,
> 3rd Edition. And name it accordingly.
Wellll, I agree with the sentiment but not the analysis. First, if there is
to be ANY kind of change to XML in 2002, it will have to be a very small
increment. XML itself (as its authors have acknowledged publicly) could not
have been produced in the time it was under the current W3C process.
"Internet time", for better or worse, died along with most of the .com's.
Also, XML 1.1 as currently defined requires a new version label since it is
not compatible with XML 1.0. An XML 1.0 parser will reject some set of
well-formed XML 1.1 documents. The new version is needed so that XML 1.0
parsers don't even try to parse documents with guitar fret symbols or random
Unicode name characters as element or attribute names.
Truly random digression: Now that the ISO has taken on the task of
rationalizing and standardizing the various alternative XML schema languages
(see http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2001-12-13-a.html) I wonder whether there
is any hope of THEM defining an International Standard that incorporates
some sensible combination of XML 1.0, xml:base, and Namespaces ....
Methinks I'm a gonna get flamed for that thought ...my only defense is too
many late nights and early mornings communing with XML geeks in Orlando ...
nevertheless, Ken Holman announced the ISO DSDL development at XML 2001 last
night, and several beers later there was some buzz that maybe we're ready
for "Spec Wars II: ISO Strikes Back" now that the Rebel Alliance has gotten
complacent and bureaucratic. <grin>
[usual disclaimer: my employers may be even more appalled than usual about
these ravings ]
|
