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

Re: Towards XML 2.0

• From: Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@ibiblio.org>
• Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:21:08 +0000

On Sat, 4 Dec 2010 09:09:49 -0500
Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@ibiblio.org> wrote:

> > I think the XML 2.0 spec should have a 'Compatibility' section in
> > it that says if you want your XML 2.0 document to be valid XML 1.0,
> > then take note of the following ... .  One of the things it would
> > mention is comments.
> 
> That's certainly worth considering. Perhaps there should be two
> levels? a basic level with no XML declaration that is XML 1.0


Easy test, how easy would that be to explain to a newbie?
Surely if you want XML 1.0, use it. The new work should remain new
and kept that way?

Certainly worth an explanatory section saying what is/isn't backwards
compatible.



-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@ibiblio.org>

• References:
  • Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@ibiblio.org>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@ibiblio.org>