Why XHTML 5 is a bad name...

... because it violates the principle
of cognitive dissonance. Things that
are different should be named different.
XHTML 2 and XHTML 5 are two totally
different animals, whilst the outside
impression would be that XHTML 5
is the successor of XHTML 2, which
isn't the case since its a fork.

Use case: Common Sense.

Will result in: Even More Confusion.

Suggestion: Rename XHTML 5 into
something different.

- Sebastian

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 22:24:44 UTC