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

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

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:48:02 -0500
Message-Id: <373161D3-F946-4644-938D-5EC6DC9FB82D@robburns.com>
Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
To: scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>

Hi Scott,

I  think you misunderstand the meaning of those documents. Those  
apply only to the work of this WG and do not reflect anything about  
the future of the participants involved with this WG. All of us are  
free to develop technologies for any standard we wish.

Take care,
Rob

On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:36 AM, scott lewis wrote:

>
>
> 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 Wednesday, 3 October 2007 02:48:15 UTC

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