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

Re: Why XHTML 5 is a bad name...

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:03:24 +1000
Message-ID: <4681C56C.8020501@lachy.id.au>
To: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer wrote:
> ... 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.

Based on that argument, you're saying it comes down to a question of 
which is the odd one out, yet you seem to have made the assumption that 
XHTML 2.0 deserves to be called XHTML and jumped to the conclusion that 
it is XHTML5 that needs to change.

We have XHTML 1.0, XHTML 1.1, XHTML 2.0 and XHTML5.  I believe everyone 
agrees that XHTML2 and XHTML5 are incompatible with each other.  But 
which one is compatible with XHTML1.x?  The answer to that question is 
the same as the answer to the question of which should keep the name.

Given that I have already explained how XHTML2 is seriously incompatible 
with XHTML1 in previous posts, why do you think XHTML2 deserves to be 
called XHTML?

> Use case: Common Sense.
> 
> Will result in: Even More Confusion.

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?  We've had both 
XHTML2 and XHTML5 co-existing for the last 3 years, so surely there'd be 
some evidence to indicate that people are really confused.  Yet, I have 
not seen any.

XHTML5 is already a widely used name [1].  Changing it would very likely 
cause far more confusion than keeping it, and the attempt would 
ultimately fail.

Naming debates are not fun!  I think this one is particularly pointless, 
since very few people have presented any rational arguments.  There have 
only been opinions; vague, unsupported claims about the resulting 
confusion if both share the same name; and a few bogus claims about m12n 
and backwards compatibility.

This must stop!  XHTML5 will retain it's name, there is no reason to 
change it and plenty of reasons to keep it.  Whether or not XHTML2 
should change it's name is debatable.  I don't see see it happening and 
retaining its name will not cause any significant problems.  If you wish 
to continue discussing changing XHTML2's name, please take it to 
public-xhtml2.

[1] http://www.google.com.au/search?q=XHTML5

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 02:03:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:45 UTC