W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2012

[Bug 19925] Drop XHTML from the title of the document

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:35:29 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-19925-2486-27paEBuK5W@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

--- Comment #3 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
(In reply to comment #2)

Here is a name change proposal:

  <h1>HTML5 United</h1>
  <h2>A unified, HTML5-conforming and semantically robust
      authoring syntax profile for any HTML or XML parser.</h2>

   (If that title becomes too cool: <h1>HTML United Profile</h1>)

   Justification for the word choice: 

  A. United: Alludes to single syntax/togetherness/safe/strong etc

  B. Unified: Single syntax/Unification of XHTML5 and HTML5 syntax

  C. Semantically robust: It is always interpreted the same.

  D. HTML5-conforming: This is an important promise. We want
     authors to feel that they - without risk for validation
     punishment - can try this syntax. (Thus we must not fall
     for the temptation to allow something that HTML5 doesn't
     allow first - despite that it is an  extension spec.)

  E. Authoring syntax = to emphasize that this is a "how to 
     author" kind of specification - and not a parser spec.
     Also important to link "semantically robust" and "syntax",
     to prevent people from thinking that XHTML is "more 
     semantic" in and by itself, just because it is XML.

  F. For any HTML or XML parser: It would be possible to drop
     these 6 words, I guess. But, actually, these words justify
     the choice of the UTF-8 encoding as the single encoding
     (because, as the spec already says: UTF-8 is the only
     encoding that ALL HTML and XML parsers MUST support.]

  G. I chose to drop "polyglot" because it confuses those that
      know its computer meaning as well as those that don't.

     'Polyglot' also has the drawback that it focuses on "many" 
     ("poly-") whereas the attraction of polyglot markup rather
     is that it is a single syntax …

  H. I chose to split the title in two, because this is how 
     the HTML5 spec is titled.

I did not say 'HTML5 United Syntax" or "HTML5 United Markup", in order to avoid
that - again - readers "jump to conclusions" about what this profile is.

I was quite literal in dropping "XHTML" … even if it could be argue that we
should add "XHTML5-conforming" as well.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 11 November 2012 03:35:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:35 UTC