Lists Home |
Date Index |
> >I see that erratum E38 to the XML 1.0 Rec removed the prescription that
> >is an error to use the wrong version number in the XML declaration.
> But it also replaced the VersionNum production with one requiring 1.0.
Richard, would you clarify this point? I saw that the production required
"1.0", but withou the requirement to produce an error, my own interpretation
would be that a processor could accept, say, "1.1" and proceed without an
error. Was the idea that the production would be so definitive that
obviously a well-formedness error should be produced?
> It is because the Core WG realised that that erratum was over-hastily
> accepted that we are soliciting opinions here.
And I thank you all for that.
The rationale for the change was said to be XML 1.1, and personally I think
it should not have been published until 1.1 was published - they should have
been coordinated. What if 1.1 never happens in the anticipated form? What
of the change to 1.0 then?