[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 6:37 PM -0500 1/13/04, Michael Champion wrote:
>That poses a bit of a problem for the XML community -- is the
>rational response to "fix" the bits of XML that people stumble over
>[awaiting shrieks from the people who shot down XML 1.1],
A patently false slander. The objections to XML 1.1 were that it was
"fixing" things no one was actually stumbling over, and indeed making
breakage and stumbling more likely in the future. If an XML 1.2 were
introduced that actually improved XML, then a rational decision would
need to be made comparing the benefits it offered vs. the cost of the
transition. The problem with XML 1.1 was that this analysis was never
made. Indeed several players argued that it was morally repugnant to
even consider doing a cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, in my
judgement the net benefit was negative even if the cost of transition
had been zero.
Now if you show us an XML 1.2 that is a genuine improvement over XML
1.0, then we can judge it on its own merits. Tim Bray's Skunkworks
proposal might be a good place to start.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
|
