- From: Philip Taylor (Webmaster) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:08:06 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> Dan Connolly 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. Given statements like > th[os]e below [1], reasoned discussion seems unlikely to be productive: I disagree : if the XHTML WG do not wish this group to use the label XHTML, then we should not use it. You may find the statements below [1] counter-productive; I find them predictable and understandable (and I speak as a member of /this/ group, not of the XHTML WG). Philip Taylor -------- [1] > "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." > > Regards, > Maciej >
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 15:13:26 UTC