Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Kay scripsit:
> You mean you want to abuse the errata process to make a retrospective
> change to the spec that is not actually an erratum.
Do you have a definition of "erratum"? We do not make errata that involve
changes to the definition of well-formedness. This one is marginal
because <?xml version="bluberry"?> is allowed to generate a fatal error
as if it were well-formed.
> They are already allowed to reject a document claiming version="1.1", as
> you have just said. They are also allowed to process it, and accept it
> provided it conforms in all other respects to XML 1.0. Since (one hopes)
> the vast majority of documents that are well-formed under XML 1.1 will
> also be well-formed under XML 1.0, why are you trying to make a
> retrospective change that forces XML 1.0 parsers to reject such
Primarily to avoid the complications of differential processing of
documents. XML 1.1 parsers are encouraged to accept XML 1.0 documents
properly marked as such (either by a version="1.0" or by the absence
of a version), but that is a QOI issue, of course.
> It means that instead of having two kinds of parser out there, those
> that conform to XML 1.0 and those that conform to XML 1.1, we'll have
> three sorts, those two plus parsers that conformed to XML 1.0 at the
> time they were released but don't conform to XML 1.0 as retrospectively
> amended. Is this really an improvement?
This is true whenever there are errata.
One art / There is John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com
All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter