[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Henry S. Thompson wrote: > Elliotte Harold writes: > >> . . . then this should be >> addressed in a new version of XML rather than by abusing the W3C >> errata process. > > The W3C errata process [1] defines three kinds of change which can be > published in a new edition: > > 1) No changes to text content > 2) Corrections that do not affect conformance > Editorial changes or clarifications that do not change the > technical content of the specification. > 3) Corrections that MAY affect conformance, but add no new features > These changes MAY affect conformance to the Recommendation. > > ... > > Seems to me the proposed name-character inventory change falls > squarely in category 3. I appreciate that you may dislike this change > on technical and/or policy grounds, but to claim that it violates W3C > process is misleading at best. The question regarding W3C policy seems to hinge on "is this change a new feature?" I find the answer to that question to be a very simple YES, whatever the specific proposal's merits or failings. I haven't had faith in the W3C's process for a very long time, but this kind of hair-splitting seems counterproductive at best. It seems extremely clear that both supporters and opponents of the proposal regard it as indeed something new. Thanks, Simon St.Laurent Retiring XML troublemaker http://simonstl.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |

Cart



