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 15:06:16 -0700
Message-Id: <BC0CEF38-D2FE-4E85-81A1-DDCA476644F9@apple.com>
Cc: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>

On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Robert Burns wrote:

> On Jun 21, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Incidentally, the XHTML2 WG keeps saying that they decided long  
>> ago to reuse the XHTML1 namespace, but the latest Editor's Draft I  
>> could find, from April 2007, still has a namespace that is  
>> different from XHTML1. Maybe they have made an internal change  
>> since then. I think the namespace is a bigger deal than the name  
>> of the XML serlaization.
> In terms of namespace, XHTML2 more closely respects the namespace  
> than the current HTML5 draft. I expect will resolve that before we  
> reach public draft stage, but right now the HTML5 draft uses the  
> same element and attribute names to mean different things than in  
> prior versions of HTML and XHTML.

It's hard for me to see how anyone could draw the conclusion that  
HTML5 does this more than XHTML2. I'm looking forward to the promised  
document in that regard.

> The processing changes proposed for XHTML2 are not related to  
> namespace conflicts.

I'm not sure what that sentence means.

> I would imagine the reaction of the XHTML2 WG is more to the name  
> XHTML5 that would have the effect (whether intended or not) of  
> making XHTML2 seem obsoleted. XHTML1.5 would get around that (while  
> still providing a link to HTML something like java 1.2/ J2EE 2).

I'd love to hear an official statement from the XHTML2 WG to that  

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 22:06:29 UTC

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