• From: Len Bullard <len.bullard@u...>
• To: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>, 'XML Developers List' <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:10:22 -0600

It does not seem correct to call it an error when a specification drifts out
of sync with another specification, in this case, Unicode.  Perhaps
corrigenda as a synonym for errata isn't right either (corrections supplied
after publication and inserted, or printer's error).

On the other hand, the fact of dependent referencing indicates a corrective
process to resync the specs, and that is, IMHO, versioning.  OTW, the
various organizations need to name a process where the intent is strictly to
synchronize versions of dependent specification rather than to add or delete
features not associated with a dependent specification, such as dumping
DTDs, fixing namespaces, etc., which is clearly a major version change (XML
2.0).

len


From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@r...] 

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?

Jonathan

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>