3 ms·

XML 1.0 was clearly a huge success. What I'm curious about is the seeming failure of XML 1.1. What happened there? Is it just like IPv6, in that there are too m

• planede 4y ago
  It's like YAML 1.2
• dfox 4y ago
  XML 1.1 did not "fail". It is from the start designed as slight relaxation of XML syntax rules for applications that can benefit from it, which essentially means applications running platforms where the usual encoding is not derived from ascii (eg. EBCDIC). It was never meant to be widely used.
  • orra 4y ago
    Of course XML 1.1 was meant to be widely used. The design goals[1] for XML 1.1 are the same as for XML 1.0, including being "straightforwardly usable", "support[ing] a wide variety of applications", and being "easy to create". The relaxation of names in XML 1.1 is good for internationalisation[2], by not limiting names to Unicode 2.0 characters. Allowing NEL characters, as used on IBM mainframes, was not the sole motivation for XML 1.1. [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#sec-origin-goals https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#sec-origin-go... [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#sec-xml11 https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#sec-xml11