[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sunday 16 February 2003 07:30 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> Gavin Thomas Nicol scripsit:
> > I think XML 1.0 did very well overall... I actually dislike the approach
> > XML 1.1 is taking mostly because I think it's a good thing to have a
> > self-contained specification, especially a cornerstone spec like XML.
> > This is in stark contrast to the spider web of specs we're seeing
> > nowadays.
>
> Say what? XML 1.0 makes normative reference to Unicode and ISO 10646
> already. XML 1.1 only adds Charmod (and XML 1.0) to the normatie
> references. The table in Appendix B is gone, but only because all the
> work is now being done by production 4 (and new 4a), it being short
> enough not to require reference to an Appendix.
>
> The *intent* behind XML 1.1 is in fact less bound to the Unicode tables
> than XML 1.0's was.
Sorry, my message was unclear. The "spider web of specs" is not referring to
XML 1.1, but all the *other* specs, like XPath 2.0.
In as far as my dislike of XML 1.1 approach... I appreciate the intent, but I
think the effect might well be different from what is intended. I could be
wrong, of course.
|
