> I suppose that RELAX NG 2.0 is a long-term goal.
Yes, I think so. I don't expect RELAX NG 2.0 to contain more than a small
percentage of the ideas that have been and will be suggested. The hard part
will be to make the right choices. I think we still need much more real
world experience before we can do this.
> However, it might make
> sense to introduce some small fixes before RELAX NG becomes an
> International Standard.
I think there is scope for a 1.0 2nd edition or 1.0.1 that doesn't change
the namespace URI and doesn't add any new syntax, but merely incorporates
errata, clarifies things, and makes changes of the "arguably an erratum"
type, such as
>> 10. A better restriction on <interleave> (issue 40); the current one
>> forbids some useful things
and
>> An infinite-nameclass <attribute> is required to have <text/>
>> as its content.
For anything that adds new features, I'm less sure. My guess is that
everybody could pick just one little extra feature they would like to add
in 1.1, but that we would each pick something different.
James
