[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On its merit, I'll need more time to consider this proposal. Maybe it
would be a reasonable thing for XML 1.1. Maybe it wouldn't.
However, I strongly object to adding this as an erratum to XML 1.0.
It is not an erratum. There is no room for this proposal in XML 1.0.
The XML 1.0 working group knew what they were doing and made a
deliberate decision. They did not make a mistake. Pewrhaps their
decision was unwise, which is a different issue that could be
resolved in a new version of XML.
However, the use of the errata process to reopen asked and answered
questions must be eschewed. Regretabbly there is precedent for using
errata to change the clear language of the spec (the namespace URI
for the xml prefix). However, this is a horrid decision that should
never have happened. Let's not repeat that mistake now.
What you propose is a genuine change to XML, not an erratum. It
requires a new version of XML. Let's not pretend we're just putting a
band-aid on the spec when in fact we're doing major surgery without
anesthesia.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002)
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xmljava
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0201771861/cafeaulaitA
|
