• From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:28:15 +1000

At 06:55 22/06/2001, John Cowan wrote:

>>But this new and incompatible version should be christened XML 1.01, or
>>any other version number that reflects the evolution of XML.
>><?xml version='1.01'?> isn't that bad, and it implies exactly what you say.
>
>
>The Core WG has not yet decided whether changing the version number or 
>inventing some new kind of label is the Right Thing.
>
>Comments are solicited.

I'm with others on this one:

If it is decided that a change needs to
be made, then surely the version number
will be updated ... otherwise, why call
it a "version number" at all?

J

-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution

http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@s...

• References:
  • XML Blueberry
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: Jesús Quiroga <jquiroga@p...>
  • Re: XML Blueberry
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Blueberry
• Next by Date: Re: XML Blueberry
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Blueberry
• Next by thread: Re: XML Blueberry
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread