Re: Towards XML 2.0
On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:43:57 -0500 Michael Sokolov <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: mpatible, and a level with<?xml version='2.0'> that is not? > > > I started trying to work out use cases for backwards compatibility > (old documents, new tools / old tools / new documents), and realized > I don't have enough experience (or patience?) to propose anything > definitive or thoroughly considered. Still I feel that the success > of this whole enterprise will very much hinge on getting the nuances > of the compatibility decisions just right, so smart people: please > think deeply about this! The MK option struck a nice balance for me. If you want to use 'old' tools with new documents transform them into current standards. That leaves a caveat that new syntax/semantics must be capable of being transformed 'back' into current syntax. Far less onerous than insisting on backwards compatibility. And a good stopgap. -- regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[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