[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: version numbers and infosets

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: version numbers and infosets
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:54:04 -0400
• References: <200207230943.KAA20828@m...>

[Richard Tobin]

> I think the best compromise is to say that documents labelled with a
> version other than 1.0 are not well-formed XML 1.0 documents, but that
> an XML 1.0 parser may accept them.  This breaks no documents and no
> implementations, but it allows us to unambiguously state the version
> of a document.  Can anyone see any problems with it?
>

It seems to make sense, yet I have a bit of trouble thinking a document is
not well-formed when it can become well-formed just by removing the xml
declaration.  I remember we had some long threads on this months ago (or was
it last year?) but I do not remember any well-accepted solution emerging.
Guess it is time again.

How about if

1) A 1.1 parser could optionally have a 1.0 mode, and
2) There were programmatic means to query whether it supported 1,0, and if
it did,
3) The parse mode could be set programmatically, and maybe
4) Such a parser failing on a document could optionally (under program
control) switch modes and try again.  This last could be a recommended
design practice, rather than a requirement.

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@d...>

• References:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by Date: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Previous by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread