Subject: Fwd: Re: [USA-WG] XML 1.0 or 1.1?
For the record I'm forwarding this comment from the PPW discussion list regarding our CAP Issue #22 (re XML 1.1) - Art >To: Art Botterell <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com >From: David Kelley <davidkelley@ITSware.net> >Subject: Re: [USA-WG] XML 1.0 or 1.1? >Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:29:55 -0800 > >Art: >Both the work of Justice XML and the Transportation ITS standards use >version one. [i.e. every schema starts with <?xml version="1.0" >encoding="UTF-8"?>] Because we will want to include the CAP work in both >these efforts it would be best if it stayed at 1.0 as well. Moving to 1.1 >would cause implementation to have to be sure that you used not unique 1.1 >features that their own tools could not deal with. Some are likely to just >rename the first line on you. But on the other hand, I do not know of any >actual real problem that 1.1 causes at this time based on our own >development work (mostly a NET shop with PHP, you need to ask a Java shop). > >Dave > > >At 09:58 AM 11/9/2004 -0800, Art Botterell wrote: > >>Friends - >> >>Need the guidance of the implementer community on a technical point. The >>OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee (TC) is working on a >>"maintenance release" spec, designated CAP 1.1 and forecast for release in >>the first part of next year. This is strictly a clean-up operation... >>catching a few clarifications and tweaks that have been identified since >>CAP 1.0, but nothing that should require significant technical changes. >> >>One issue that's come up is whether CAP should be specified in terms of >>XML 1.0 or 1.1. Currently the CAP schema is defined in XML 1.0, but that >>seems to pose a bit of a paradox since XML Schema were introduced with XML >>1.1. The TC is considering moving unambiguously to XML 1.1, but we want >>to be as cautious as we can. >> >>So... do any of the implementers out there see any major problem with >>moving ahead to XML 1.1? If so, could you please share some details so we >>can make a case, one way or the other? >> >>Thanks! >> >>- Art >>_______________________________________________ >>USA-WG mailing list >>USA-WG@lists.incident.com >>http://www.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/usa-wg >_______________________________________________ >USA-WG mailing list >USA-WG@lists.incident.com >http://www.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/usa-wg