W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Summary: Naming Issue, Proposals

From: Dão Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:19:35 +0200
Message-ID: <4688FB67.8050705@design-noir.de>
To: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net>
CC: public-html@w3.org, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

They're all awful. XHTML 1.5 is the only alternative that I see (I was 
just about to propose that until I that it was done before).

Besides, since XHTML2 has its own namespace, I don't think the XHTML2 WG
is in the position to tell us to not call the XML serialisation of any
HTML version "XHTML". FWIW, their language identifier is "XHTML2" to
which they should consequentially append any version number, e.g.
"XHTML2 1.0". As a reasult, "XHTML 5" (with a space!) is still on option
for us.

Now if the XHTML2 WG does want to use the XHTML namespace, we'd have a 
conflict. But as this would cause a bunch of compatibility problems on 
their side, I don't think we should care too much about that.

Dao

Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer schrieb:
> 
> H5X (HTML5 XML Serialization > HTML5 XMLS > HTML5 XS > HTML5 X > H5X)
> H|X|E5 (HTML XML Edition 5 > H|X|E5 ("Hixie 5"))
> HAX/HAX5 (HTML5 as XML > H5AX, H5X, or HAX / HAX5)
> HTML5X
> HTML5/XML
> HTML5_XML
> HTML5-XML
> HTML5+XML
> HTML5[XML]
> HTML5(XML)
> HTML5.XML
> HAWT/XHAWT (hypertext applications with web technologies (hawt/xhawt -> 
> hot/shot))
> 
> - Sebastian
> 
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 15:51:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:02 GMT