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

Re: Choosing name for XML serialization (Was: Re: HTML5 differences from HTML4 editor's draft (XHTML5 and XHTML2))

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:52:34 -0700
Message-Id: <038BF64A-D421-42AE-88D6-03C7B4DC8360@apple.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>

On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:07 AM, Jirka Kosek wrote:

> Dan Connolly wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:31 +0200, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Would you like me to ask the XHTML 2 Working Group their opinion?
>>> Yes, please.
>> OK... done...
>> input on name for XML serialization of HTML 5? Dan Connolly  
>> (Thursday,
>> 14 June)
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Jun/0010.html
> Not unsurprisingly, it seems that XHTML WG is not willing to give  
> up or
> at least share "XHTML" label:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-xhtml-minutes#item05
> "RESOLUTION: We agree that the HTML WG should not use the XHTML  
> name to
> refer to their XML serialization."

I think we'll just have to use the name "XHTML" and the XHTML  
namespace and have this eventually settled by the Director. Given  
statements like the below, reasoned discussion seems unlikely to be  

"Mark: I don't see why they need two names. They have HTML5, with two  
serializations. No need for two names."

"Rich: All existing XHTMLs have been modular, and HTML5 is not. It's  
a mess."

"Steven: I believe that XHTML2 is more backwards compatible than  
HTML5, and I plan to make a document comparing them to demonstrate it."

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 09:54:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC