← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
XML 1.0 (3rd Edition) (Was: XML-1.1 -- just ignore it)
In a message dated 14/12/01 18:52:27 GMT Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Tim,
Perhaps we can start with the name "XML 1.1". Surely that is misleading, as the issues raised by Mike Kay a day or two pointed out. I see no namespace support for example.
XML 1.1 implies a progression from XML 1.0. To produce a "new" version of XML which will likely go to REC in 2002 without namespaces seems absurd to me.
In the absence of namespace support let's recognise "XML 1.1" for what it is - XML 1.0, 3rd Edition. And name it accordingly.
Andrew Watt
At 07:44 PM 14/12/01 +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>I see XML 1.1 is out, and it is so crazy that it is funny. My considered
>recommendation is we all have a good laugh, and then forget about it.
>
>By allowing any character in names...
I recommend that we ignore Rick's suggestion in the first
paragraph above, and instead follow his excellent example, where
he raises issues that need to be kicked around. Do as he does,
not as he says, so to speak. -Tim
Tim,
Perhaps we can start with the name "XML 1.1". Surely that is misleading, as the issues raised by Mike Kay a day or two pointed out. I see no namespace support for example.
XML 1.1 implies a progression from XML 1.0. To produce a "new" version of XML which will likely go to REC in 2002 without namespaces seems absurd to me.
In the absence of namespace support let's recognise "XML 1.1" for what it is - XML 1.0, 3rd Edition. And name it accordingly.
Andrew Watt
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread