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

Re: Summary: Naming Issue, Proposals

From: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:09:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4689F63A.5010002@dreamlab.net>
To: public-html@w3.org

Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Dão Gottwald:
>> 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.
> 
> While this thread is still around, I might point out this page, which
> deals with TR version numbers:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions
> 

Its not the XHTML2 WG telling this WG something (at least
from my perspective), its that the W3C in general looks
pretty silly with two XHTMLs and that doesn't help any of
us. The XHTML2 WG has a charter, ratified by the AC, to
deliver XHTML2, the charter of this WG, does not mention
XHTML 5.

Another perspective: Is XHTML 5 the successor of XHTML 2?
Of course not. But thats how it looks. And we will have
to explain the relationship between those two technologies
forever to the outside world.

And in addition, over time, we will see both technologies
move up in versioning in parallel! For example, while
XHTML 5.5 comes along, XHTML 2.1 is also issued, and so on.

So give me a break. This is too obvious to be debated.

- Sebastian
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 07:09:41 GMT

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