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

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

From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:27:55 -0500
Message-ID: <468338CB.1000507@fastmail.us>
To: Arun <arun.ranganathan@corp.aol.com>, public-html@w3.org

Arun wrote:
>
> I suppose we could go about saying "an XML serialization of HTML5" but 
> that's a real mouthful.
HTML5 XML Serialization > HTML5 XMLS > HTML5 XS > HTML5 X > H5X

Pronunciations for the abbreviations could be character‐by‐character or 
“hex” for H5X or maybe “hex five” for HX5.

HTML XML Edition 5 > H|X|E5 (“Hixie 5”)

Arun wrote:
> If someone comes up with a great proposal, I'm all for it, but I'm not 
> terribly worried about confusion yet (speaking on behalf of a company 
> that authors web pages).  A strawman might be "HTML5 as XML" (since 
> when we use that, we're supposed to use a strict mimetype anyway).
HTML5 as XML works. It could be abbreviated as H5AX, H5X, or HAX. 
Alternatively, HTML as XML 5 could be abbreviated as HAX5. HAX is easier 
to pronounce  and type than HTML and XHTML are.
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 04:28:10 GMT

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