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

Re: Request for Erratum to XML 1.0 and 1.1 Specs

• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Request for Erratum to XML 1.0 and 1.1 Specs
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:14:06 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3F94F829.4080904@a...>
• References: <000801c397b0$6ec94bb0$6401a8c0@pcukmka><3F94F829.4080904@a...>

On its merit, I'll need more time to consider this proposal. Maybe it 
would be a reasonable thing for XML 1.1. Maybe it wouldn't.

However, I strongly object to adding this as an erratum to XML 1.0. 
It is not an erratum. There is no room for this proposal in XML 1.0. 
The XML 1.0 working group knew what they were doing and made a 
deliberate decision. They did not make a mistake. Pewrhaps their 
decision was unwise, which is a different issue that could be 
resolved in a new version of XML.

However, the use of the errata process to reopen asked and answered 
questions must be eschewed. Regretabbly there is precedent for using 
errata to change the clear language of the spec (the namespace URI 
for the xml prefix). However, this is a horrid decision that should 
never have happened. Let's not repeat that mistake now.

What you propose is a genuine change to XML, not an erratum. It 
requires a new version of XML. Let's not pretend we're just putting a 
band-aid on the spec when in fact we're doing major surgery without 
anesthesia.

-- 

   Elliotte Rusty Harold
   elharo@m...
   Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002)
   http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xmljava
   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0201771861/cafeaulaitA

• References:
  • RE: UTF-8+names
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • Request for Erratum to XML 1.0 and 1.1 Specs
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
• Next by Date: Re: Alternative "character entity" proposal
• Previous by thread: Request for Erratum to XML 1.0 and 1.1 Specs
• Next by thread: RE: Request for Erratum to XML 1.0 and 1.1 Specs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread