It does take a bit of hairsplitting to conclude that 1.0.5 is legitimately an erratum rather than a new version. But what's a better way forward? I see the XML 1.0.5 proposal as treading a very narrow path with an abyss on each side: On one side is the status quo, which arbitrarily limits XML names (and id attribute values, I learned today from Richard Ishida); on the other side is the failed experiment of revising XML with a new version, and the reality that the current edition of XML 1.0 insists that the versioninfo value be '1.0'. (Thus, just making in an actual revision 'XML 1.0.5" rather than "XML 1.0 5th edition" creates another nasty set of problems).Actually you could call the specification XML 1.0.5, and still use version="1.0" in the XML declaration. We would at least then have a proper handle on which specification we are referring to or claiming conformance to. If we want documents to be able to assert that they require an XML 1.0.5 parser we could introduce an optional processing instruction <?xml-edition version="1.0.5"?>. An XML 1.0 parser would not reject this processing instruction, but would of course reject the document if it actually uses the extended character set.Michael Kay