Well, I don't know about any new version. So far we've only got one new version,and it's a dog. Maybe in the future the W3C will come out with one that's actually useful, and solves real needs.
XML 1.1 does solve real needs, just perhaps not your specific needs. Remember, you're not the only user of XML technology in the world.
This reminds me of your posts on xml-dev a long time ago when people were discussing XML 1.1. I was working at the IBM research labs in Japan at the time and people there were rolling their eyes (figuratively) at your suggestion that English was good enough for element and attribute names... ;)
I think we all need to remember that there are many perspectives and solutions to any problem. And some of them may not make much sense to an individual but may have value to the collective group.
anything I'm surprised it's as good as it is. There really are very few design mistakes in XML 1.0. It's a very nice piece of work.
Really?
Despite having worked with XML awhile now, I'm still no big fan of the syntax. I wish that the DTD syntax (and inline grammar associations, in general) had been broken out of the original spec. Namespaces, like Bray's skunkworks that you mention, should have been incorporated from the beginning. And I have no need, personally, of notations which would probably make SGML folks bristle at the thought... ;)
I prefer the alternate approach of driving every nail I can find into XML 1.1's coffin so that we don't have to transition at all. After all, it's not like XML 1.1 is actually useful in any significant way.
I don't think there's a need to be so antagonistic. It's just not helpful.
-- Andy Clark * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
