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

Re: Summary: Naming Issue, Proposals

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:29:33 +0300
Message-Id: <B19131E7-B8FD-4ECE-AF70-323A8D0EE3BD@iki.fi>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
To: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net>

On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:09, Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer wrote:
> its that the W3C in general looks pretty silly with two XHTMLs
> Another perspective: Is XHTML 5 the successor of XHTML 2?
> Of course not. But thats how it looks.

XHTML5 is a successor of XHTML 1.0, though, if you look at it from  
the authoring or implementation perspective.

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

You seem to be making a case that the naming of XHTML2 is confusing  
considering that the vast majority of people out there (for good  
reason) think of XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 when they say "XHTML".

(Note that even though you seem to actually be making the case that  
the naming of XHTML2 is the root of confusion, I am not suggesting  
that the XHTML2 WG change the name of their deliverable.)

The currently implemented [to the extent implementable] REC version  
of XHTML is 1.0. It is known as the (re)formulation of HTML in XML.  
This makes calling it too obvious to be debated that "XHTML" means  
"(re)formulation of HTML in XML" and conversely a "(re)formulation of  
HTML in XML" should be called "XHTML".

Henri Sivonen
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 07:29:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:23 UTC