Re: Choosing a name for the HTML5 XML serialization, was: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Just two thoughts here:
>
> - If the HTML WG thinks that the name is not important, then, it 
> seems, the right way to address this is to stop using it and make the 
> XHTML WG happy.

> - If the HTML WG thinks that the name is not important, then.....

The HTML WG does not think it is "not important". There's almost 500 
people in this group. We haven't had a vote on it.

- Since some people seem to think that the W3C has abandoned XHTML in 
favour for HTML [1][2][3]. I think the naming issue is important. We 
need to send a clear message to the public telling them that we are 
working on XHTML, not just HTML and they will be able to use it in the 
future alongside HTML5 under the name XHTML5.

> ....make the XHTML WG happy.

- They *aren't* the XHTML WG. If any one is, it's us.
- I'm sorry, but I don't think that they ever will be happy. XHTML5 
makes XHTML2 redundant. Hence they probably don't think much of this 
group. So lets not compromise our spec and the success of XHTML, by 
trying in vane to please them.

       Some more thoughts:
- We have more right than them to use it. We're extending HTML *and* 
XHTML1.x.
- XHTML2 is not a XML serialisation of HTML, however XHTML5 is. Meaning 
that XHTML2 is not really XHTML, therefore we have a more genuine claim 
over the XHTML name and namespace.
- There's no doubt in my mind that without the brandability/easy 
recognition of XHTML5 alongside HTML5, XML will never be successful on 
the web and certainly wouldn't under the XHTML2 banner.   Note: I would 
class 1 - 6% market share for XHTML in 10-15 years to be classed as 
successful.

> - But as far as I recall, the much more interesting question is what 
> namespace to use, right?
>
> BR, Julian 
Yes Julian, I do agree. The namespace issue is very important, some of 
my comments above apply to the namespace issue too. It's just that this 
naming topic came up in the last few days and an earlier email regarding 
this matter was answered today which asked for peoples opinions on the 
matter.

[1] http://ayvahrobby.livejournal.com/201979.html?view=655099#t655099
[2] http://code.google.com/p/swffix/wiki/SWFFix_documentation   (scroll 
down to near bottom of page to see reasons why they are not supporting 
XHTML)
[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg@webstandardsgroup.org/msg30711.html

Best regards,
Dean Edridge

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 13:43:57 UTC