• From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:49:59 -0800

Jonathan Robie wrote:
> Just read Norm's blog entry on this:
> 
> http://norman.walsh.name/2008/02/07/xml105e
> 
> I think we do need full support for Unicode. XML 1.1 provides it, but 
> nobody particularly wants XML 1.1. It's odd to introduce a new character 
> set as an erratum, but is there any better way to get there from here?
> 

This is a blatant abuse of the W3C process, and thoroughly disingenuous, 
though sadly not without precedent. The XML Core working group got away 
with this chicanery before when the namespaces spec was revised to map 
the xmlns prefix to a namespace. We should have stopped them then. I 
hope we can stop them now.

I didn't like that, but this is just beyond the pale. If this goes 
through, I suspect I will completely lose faith in the W3C as a reliable 
and honest maintainer of standards. Frankly, if we can't rely on the 
stability of the base specs, then  I think it may be time to give up on 
XML (and the W3C) completely. :-(

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@m...
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>