[sc34wg3] XTM 2.0 topicRef - proposal for an erratum

[Steve Pepper]

* Lars Marius Garshol
| 
| 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? 

If I understand correctly, all that is required is a relaxation of a constraint,
such that any XTM 2.0 document will still conform to the "new" syntax. In that
case it could (and IMO should) be done as a technical corrigendum.

In any case, if this issue is preventing users from migrating from 1.0 to 2.0,
adding a third syntax will hasten convergence on a single one.

Steve