RE: [cgmo-webcgm] XML 1.0 third edition versus fifth

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Ugh.  I hadn't noticed the "supercede" language.  So we might have no 
choice unless we want to fight for an exception.

I don't think that's worth it.  But your idea is a good one, for a homework 
assignment at vF2F next week, to verify that the XML 1.0 changes are 
harmless to us.

-Lofton.

At 02:05 PM 4/22/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
>Lofton,
>
>The main reason that I brought this up is because XML 1.0 (Third Edition)
>was superseded by XML 1.0 (Fourth Edition).  The fourth edition in turn was
>superceded by the fifth edition.  I'm not sure if the W3C pub rules allow
>you to make a normative reference to another W3C Recommendation that is
>already superceded at the time your publish a working draft of your own
>Recommendation.
>
>BTW, in section 1.2 we list the fourth edition as a normative reference.
>
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Intro.ht
>ml#norm-ref
>
>The least we could do is settle on a single edition.
>
>I don't have time right now to look at the changes between XML 1.0 (Third
>Edition) and the later editions.  Perhaps this could be one of my afternoon
>"homework" assignments next week.
>
>Rob
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:55 PM
>To: CGM Open WebCGM TC
>Cc: David Cruikshank
>Subject: [cgmo-webcgm] XML 1.0 third edition versus fifth
>
>
>At 11:15 AM 4/22/2009 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
> >BTW, the first bullet in [3] below mentions XML 1.0 3rd Edition.  XML 1.0
>is
> >now at 5th Edition.
>
>Ah, the perennial question:  upgrade to latest Edition in references?
>
>Usually it is harmless.  But I seem to recall there having been controversy
>in the XML community about whether some stuff proposed for these later
>"editions" of 1.0 were really just errata corrections, or on the other hand
>were changes of functionality.
>
>The key question:  does it (5th versus 3rd) impose any significant changed
>conformance requirements on WebCGM, that we should care about?  (Be aware
>that WebCGM already automatically tracks the latest version of Unicode.)
>
>See for example the third paragraph here:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/#status
>
>Volunteer?  Does someone want to assess whether upgrading to 5th edition is
>"safe" for WebCGM?
>
>(This, btw, is probably not a technical change if we do it, so we can do it
>at 2nd LCWD or later.)
>
>-Lofton.
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php