tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200693733508292186.post3215243980520167408..comments2008-02-25T13:32:47.798-05:00Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10201367533944398106noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200693733508292186.post-47154348175200183072008-02-25T13:32:00.000-05:002008-02-25T13:32:00.000-05:00There seems to be a chicken and egg thing going on here. There are no xml 1.1 docs because vendors won't implement but people won't adopt because vendors won't support it.<BR/><BR/>So I can see why the "dirty trick" as John says is in the works.<BR/><BR/>But I do have to say that versioning must be clear. A new MINOR version number is not "a small amount of change" but an indicator of backwards compatibility. I really don't like it when organizations use a major new version number as a marketing theme. If Unicode 4 is backwardly compatible with Unicode 2 (which I have heard to be the case, but I have not verified myself) then the new version # is marketing. In that case it should be version 2.1, 2.2, or some such.Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10201367533944398106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200693733508292186.post-63429985386977259872008-02-25T12:31:00.000-05:002008-02-25T12:31:00.000-05:00The notion of forward or backward compatible doesn't apply here. The version number is being kept at 1.0 to deliberately obscure the direction of movement, or in fact that any movement has happened.<BR/><BR/>If software implementing version 1.0 of a spec is incompatible with version 1.1 of a spec you can talk sensibly about whether there is forwards or backwards compatibility, but if two pieces of software both implementing version 1.0 of a spec are incompatible then that is just bad for everyone.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12909254806316189772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2200693733508292186.post-48520784910716197372008-02-16T18:12:00.000-05:002008-02-16T18:12:00.000-05:00XML 5th edition is definitely backward compatible: anything well-formed in a previous edition is also well-formed in the 5th edition, and the same is true of validity. Some invalid documents with DTDs become valid.<BR/><BR/>Note that what's at issue here is the <I>names</I> of elements, attributes, processing instructions, and so on; it has always been the case that any character is valid in element content and attribute values, except those few that are explicitly forbidden and are still forbidden.<BR/><BR/>Yes, it's a dirty trick. But the clean trick (XML 1.1) got no takeup, and this is the only way that justice between English-speakers and Khmer-speakers can be achieved.John Cowanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.com