[sc34wg3] XTM 2.0 topicRef - proposal for an erratum

[Patrick Durusau]

Lars,

Lars Heuer wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> [...]
>   
>> The question is: is it politically wise to make an XTM 2.1? We already
>> have two XTM versions, which IMHO is one too many. Should we really  
>> increase that to three? And what are the odds that there will be a  
>> proper discussion of the issues this time around?
>>     
>
> Well, without any doubt it would have been much better if we've seen
> these problems 3 years ago, but I think we have to fix XTM 2.0
> somehow. I'd prefer to avoid three XTM syntaxes, but I don't know how.
> Maybe it's possible to put the proposed changes into an errata of XTM
> 2.0? The result would effectively be the same, but the reputation
> would be different, maybe. I'd prefer the errata solution for
> political and psychological reasons. :)
>
>   
Well, how many versions of XML are there? Counting all the various 
revisions, etc.

 From an ISO perspective, DCOR versus PDAM, our choices are correcting 
"errors" (both editorial and technical) versus "technical addition or 
change."

I think it is fair to say that we have some "errors" (both editorial and 
technical) but also "technical additions or changes."

I don't know of any viable standards that don't change. I have recently 
been invited to vote on DocBook 5.0! I once tired to use DocBook 1.* 
something for a book that required hyperlinks as subtitles. Where does 
the time go?

I fully agree that we should not simply invent versions of XTM annually 
or simply for the hell of it but either developers care enough to 
distinguish between versions or they don't.

There was an editorial some time ago in the New York Times about 
libraries that had a line that applies to standards as well: "...are 
like sharks. Either they are moving or they are probably dead."

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick


-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick at durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)