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

Re: version numbers and infosets

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: version numbers and infosets
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:52:18 -0400
• References: <200207221400.PAA20547@m...>

[Richard Tobin]

> >I see that erratum E38 to the XML 1.0 Rec removed the prescription that
it
> >is an error to use the wrong version number in the XML declaration.
>
> But it also replaced the VersionNum production with one requiring 1.0.
>

Richard, would you clarify this point?  I saw that the production required
"1.0", but withou the requirement to produce an error, my own interpretation
would be that a processor could accept, say, "1.1" and proceed without an
error.  Was the idea that the production would be so definitive that
obviously a well-formedness error should be produced?

> It is because the Core WG realised that that erratum was over-hastily
> accepted that we are soliciting opinions here.
>
And I thank you all for that.

The rationale for the change was said to be XML 1.1, and personally I think
it should not have been published until 1.1 was published - they should have
been coordinated.  What if 1.1 never happens in the anticipated form?  What
of the change to 1.0 then?

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• References:
  • Re: version numbers and infosets
    • From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pa cewith James Clark)
• Next by Date: Re: A modest proposal (was Re: URIs harmful (wasRE: Article: Keeping pace)
• Previous by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by thread: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread