On Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:43:57 -0500
Michael Sokolov <> wrote:
mpatible, and a level with<?xml version='2.0'> that is not?
> >
> I started trying to work out use cases for backwards compatibility
> (old documents, new tools / old tools / new documents), and realized
> I don't have enough experience (or patience?) to propose anything
> definitive or thoroughly considered. Still I feel that the success
> of this whole enterprise will very much hinge on getting the nuances
> of the compatibility decisions just right, so smart people: please
> think deeply about this!
The MK option struck a nice balance for me.
If you want to use 'old' tools with new documents transform them
into current standards.
That leaves a caveat that new syntax/semantics must be capable
of being transformed 'back' into current syntax.
Far less onerous than insisting on backwards compatibility.
And a good stopgap.
--
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
