[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On ven, 2005-05-13 at 07:16 -0400, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>
> > If the intent is different from what's written, that should be published
> > as an errata. Leaving it to the appreciation of the readers would likely
> > provoke interoperability nightmares!
>
> In a committee written spec, different authors, editors, and reviewers
> may all have different "intent" for the same language. Indeed even a
> single author may have had different intent at different times. It's
> entirely possible that some working group members intended the spec to
> refer to the most current versions and some intended it to specifically
> refer to XML 1.0 and not subsequent versions.
Sure, but the only tangible stuff for an external reader is what gets
written!
> This is yet another reason why normative test suites are really, really
> important for specifications of this nature.
Test suites are very important indeed, but I don't see how they can help
in this kind of cases where the difference between "XML 1.0" and "the
current XML version" does only show up years after the rec has been
published and when after a test suite has been stabilised on the XML
version available when it has been written!
Eric
--
Carnet web :
http://eric.van-der-vlist.com/blog?t=category&a=Fran%C3%A7ais
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
