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 03:52:18 -0700
Message-Id: <F79F55B0-85E8-4631-A64D-5C193C3B0087@apple.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>


On Jun 21, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Jirka Kosek wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> But shouldn't this be resolved now rather then later? It will be quite
> confusing to users if two groups will in parallel develop "future
> version of XHTML" or "maintain XHTML namespace".
>
> It really seems that with regard to XHTML name and XHTML namespace  
> both
> WG are not willing to agree on some compromise. Even when there are
> approaches that IMHO should satisfy both groups (for example using
> XHTML1.5 for XML serialization of HTML5,

I think XHTML1.5 would be an OK name and I don't think the HTML WG as  
a whole would object. But the XHTML2 WG stated that they don't want  
the XML serialization of HTML5 to use "XHTML" in the name at all. I  
don't think that is a reasonable request.

> and use version attribute in HTML5 and XHTML2 to differentiate  
> between languages).

I think having two mutually wildly incompatible languages in the same  
namespace is not technologically workable whether or not there is a  
version attribute. But it's only a theoretical problem until someone  
wants to implement both.

> Does W3C has some process how to escalate such issue to the  
> director or TAG?

I don't think there is an official way other than Formal Objection.  
Unofficially, we could just ask. It might be better to try to come to  
an amicable resolution first if that is indeed possible.

>
>> Given statements like
>> the below, reasoned discussion seems unlikely to be productive:
>
> I don't think that out of context citations taken from minutes are the
> best way how to show that you want to reasonably discuss issues ;-)

There was no context given in the minutes that would make any of  
those statements correct. In fact, I think I quoted about a fifth of  
the total minuted discussion.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 10:52:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:01 GMT