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

Re: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:13:29 -0500
To: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1193811209.6433.854.camel@pav>

On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 04:06 +1200, Dean Edridge wrote:
[...]
> Is it possible to have an update on this please? Can we call the XML 
> serialisation of the spec XHTML 5 or not?
> I understand that Chris Wilson was going to speak to the XHTML 2 working 
> group about this a few weeks ago.

right...

  ACTION: ChrisW discuss XHTML name coordination with XHTML 2 WG in the
Hypertext CG
   -- http://www.w3.org/2007/08/16-html-wg-minutes#item06

He did that a week or two ago, though if he sent mail to this WG
afterward, I missed it...

>  What was the outcome of that meeting?

The XHTML 2 WG chairs clarified their decision record
  http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-xhtml-minutes#item05

In addition to  "RESOLUTION: We agree that the HTML WG should not use
the XHTML name to refer to their XML serialization" the XHTML 2 WG's
argument includes the points discussed above it; in particular,

"they should not call it XHTML unless they use modularization"
"All existing XHTMLs have been modular, and HTML5 is not."

and "problem of confusion
... I've already seen it amongst developers."

I'm interested to know what the editors (Ian, Dave) and other
WG members think of those arguments.

I'm inclined to leave this to the editor's discretion, as it
doesn't directly impact interoperability; it's not the sort of
thing that shows up in software, markup, and test cases.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 06:13:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:08 GMT