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

Vendor Support for XHTML2 [was Re: role cardinality [was: Re: ARIA Proposal ]]

From: scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:36:47 -0600
To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <7B2FB326-15D5-4F57-9B9E-F6026BD11EB4@scotfl.ca>


On 1 Oct 2007, at 2331, Robert Burns wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:36:37 +0200, Richard Schwerdtfeger  
>> <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks. The tricky thing is that XHTML 1.x modularization also  
>>> uses the
>>> same http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace. So, when we introuce  
>>> aria-
>>> properties for xhtml serialization they also show up there. So,  
>>> there is
>>> serialization for html and then the xhtml modularization work .  
>>> How is that coordinated?
>>
>> Seems like an issue for W3C management to solve. (Personally I've  
>> always wondered why the HTML WG did not automatically inherit all  
>> documents that dealt with the XHTML namespace, but so be it.) This  
>> issue was raised before when it became evident that the XHTML2 WG  
>> might be using the XHTML namespace for XHTML 2.0, but no decision  
>> has been made as far as I can tell. As far as most browser vendors  
>> are concerned this is all highly theoretical though last time I  
>> checked as none of them has any intentions of implementing XHTML 2.0.
>>
>> (I think the XHTML Modularization is not for implementors, but for  
>> specification writers, although this is not entirely clear to me.  
>> Another thing is that it builds on top of HTML 4.01, which is  
>> being revised by the HTML WG.)
>
> I don't think any of us know the intentions of any of the browser  
> vendors and I'm not sure its relevant to the discussion. For the  
> proprietary vendors, most of them have policies that they will not  
> make forward looking pronouncements about products. For the open  
> source projects, they're much too de-centered to determine what  
> will happen. You may have knowledge about Opera, though I suspect  
> you may have even been required to sign an NDA for Opera as well.


http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/ 
FAQ#What_is_the_WHATWG_and_why_did_it_form.3F
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Apr/0429.html

Mozilla, Apple, and Opera publicly rejected the W3C's XHTML2 in  
favour of WHATWG's HTML5 some time ago.

hth,
scott.
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 06:37:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:50 UTC