Return-Path: 
 <forrest-dev-return-3978-apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive=xml.apache.org@xml.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-xml-forrest-dev-archive@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 35789 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2002 00:46:31 -0000
Mailing-List: contact forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
list-help: <mailto:forrest-dev-help@xml.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:forrest-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org>
list-post: <mailto:forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>
Reply-To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Received: (qmail 35754 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2002 00:46:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO set.superlinksoftware.com) (66.35.175.110)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Dec 2002 00:46:31 -0000
Received: from rdu26-72-100.nc.rr.com ([66.26.72.100])
          by set.superlinksoftware.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.1a1-cvs) with SMTP
 ID 519
          for <forrest-dev@xml.apache.org>;
          Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:08:36 -0500
Message-ID: <3DEE221E.8080202@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:41:18 -0500
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bad dtding
References: <3DED6E7B.6060305@apache.org> <3DED9840.8010605@outerthought.org>
 <3DEDA233.2010106@apache.org> <3DEDC7F0.2040609@outerthought.org>
In-Reply-To: <3DED6E7B.6060305@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Its also the version thats been in centipede for like 6 months or so. 
 From a user perspective...its very mean.  There are infinite numbers 
possible, I do not suggest numeric conservation as an appropriate tradeoff.

-Andy

Steven Noels wrote:

> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> Simple, he was using a development version.
>> I brought this topic up some months ago, because I felt that every 
>> change to the dtd had to imply a number change, but the decision was 
>> that till it wasn't "released" we kept the same number.
>
>
> I don't think trivial, _backwards-compatible_ changes warrant the 
> trouble of increasing version numbers, changing PUBLIC IDs, updating 
> catalogs, etc...
>
> Other opinions?
>
> </Steven>