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

Re: The version number in XML documents

• To: michael.h.kay@n...
• Subject: Re: The version number in XML documents
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 21:36:16 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l..., xml-editor@w...
• In-reply-to: <002701c2300a$feebaee0$6401a8c0@pcukmka> from "Michael Kay" at Jul 20, 2002 05:32:10 PM

Michael Kay scripsit:

> You mean you want to abuse the errata process to make a retrospective
> change to the spec that is not actually an erratum.

Do you have a definition of "erratum"?  We do not make errata that involve
changes to the definition of well-formedness.  This one is marginal
because <?xml version="bluberry"?> is allowed to generate a fatal error
as if it were well-formed.

> They are already allowed to reject a document claiming version="1.1", as
> you have just said. They are also allowed to process it, and accept it
> provided it conforms in all other respects to XML 1.0. Since (one hopes)
> the vast majority of documents that are well-formed under XML 1.1 will
> also be well-formed under XML 1.0, why are you trying to make a
> retrospective change that forces XML 1.0 parsers to reject such
> documents?

Primarily to avoid the complications of differential processing of
documents.  XML 1.1 parsers are encouraged to accept XML 1.0 documents
properly marked as such (either by a version="1.0" or by the absence
of a version), but that is a QOI issue, of course.

> It means that instead of having two kinds of parser out there, those
> that conform to XML 1.0 and those that conform to XML 1.1, we'll have
> three sorts, those two plus parsers that conformed to XML 1.0 at the
> time they were released but don't conform to XML 1.0 as retrospectively
> amended. Is this really an improvement?

This is true whenever there are errata.

-- 
One art / There is                      John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
No less / No more                       http://www.reutershealth.com
All things / To do                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With sparks / Galore                     -- Douglas Hofstadter

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: The version number in XML documents
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Re: The version number in XML documents
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • RE: The version number in XML documents
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Question for the XPath and DOM folks
• Next by Date: Re: URIs harmful (was RE: Article: Keeping pace
• Previous by thread: RE: The version number in XML documents
• Next by thread: Re: The version number in XML documents
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread