Re: [xml-dev] Was there a technical issue for the demise of XML 1.1?

I have a different view to share.

Quoting chapter and verse, the XML 1.1 
specification states here that if you are not 
using a feature of 1.1 thou shalt use a declaration of 1.0:

   https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#proc-types (last paragraph)
  "Programs which generate XML SHOULD generate XML 1.0, unless
   one of the specific features of XML 1.1 is required."

Okay ... so it isn't "SHALL" ... still, I think 
the compulsion is there in that statement. And so 
I told my students that all XML 1.0 documents are 
XML 1.1 documents, they just aren't using any 
features that are unique to XML 1.1 and so are merely declared as 1.0.

And to another point made in the thread, #x00 
isn't valid even in XML 1.1 and so some desired 
binary sequences are still not possible in XML:

   https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#NT-Char

I hope this is helpful.

. . . . . Ken

At 2018-10-08 18:56 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>It was a collection of fixes to XML 1.0 none of 
>which was in itself sufficiently compelling to 
>justify a new and incompatible version.  The 
>feature I considered the most important, 
>ditching Unicode 2.0 in favor of an evolving set 
>of characters for element and attribute names 
>(as well as the values of non-CDATA attributes), 
>was incorporated into the 5th Edition of XML 
>1.0.  My view is that XML 1.1 should be formally deprecated by W3C.
>
>On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:01 PM Costello, Roger 
>L. <<mailto:>> wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>
>It is my understanding that the reason for the 
>demise of XML 1.1 was simply that it was never 
>adopted by the community - people were already 
>using 1.0 and there was no compelling reason for 
>moving to 1.1. Was there also a technical issue for its demise?
>
>/Roger


--
Contact info, blog, articles, etc. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/ |
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training class @ US$45 (5 hours free) |