RE: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format