[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread 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
> documents?
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 <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com
All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter
|
