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

Re: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5

From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:26:13 +1200
To: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Cc: Chris Adams <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <46FDD3E5.1000608@55.co.nz>

Dean Edridge wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>> XHTML 5 in my opinion could never work merely for the fact that the 
>> XHTML group will be out in the cold in a good many years when version 
>> 5 rolls around....
>>
> XHTML 5 is the only name that would really work.
>
>> ...the fact that the XHTML group will be out in the cold...
> *We are* in essence the XHTML working group [1]  :-)
>
>> when version 5 rolls around....
> It's not rolling anywhere Chris :-) It's already here [2] and people 
> are using XHTML 5 already.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that XHTML is being developed by 
> the XHTML 2 working group and we should all sit around and wait for 
> them to hand it to us one day in 2023 or something. And even then it 
> wont be fit for real world consumption. In reality the W3C has all but 
> abandoned the development of "real world XHTML". There has been more 
> progress achieved on XHTML in the last few years by the WHATWG than by 
> anyone else. This is due in part to the fact that members/contributors 
> of the WHATWG actually have real world experience in using XHTML on 
> the web and have written their spec to reflect this. It is my opinion 
> that the future success of XHTML will be determined by this 
> group(public-html) and the WHATWG not the XHTML 2 working group. The 
> XHTML 2 spec is currently being designed behind closed  doors with no 
> input from the public or browser manufactures. This is a REAL problem 
> and is very unlikely to cause the XHTML 2 spec to never be used on the 
> real web leading to the W3C abandoning XHTML 2. So any talk of 
> possible naming conflicts between XHTML 2 and XHTML 5 are quite 
> irrelevant and hold no weight.
>> as Adam suggested HTXML could work,  or perhaps HTML-XML.
> No, that wouldn't work. Why would we want to use such absurd and 
> non-logical acronyms for a spec that is an extension for XHTML1.x and  
> HTML4 ?
> The string "HTML" must be kept and be used as part of the naming of 
> both the serialisations.
>
> This is the way it should be:
>   HTML 5 (text/html)
> XHTML 5 (application/xhtml+xml) or (application/xml)
>
> It's simple, semantic. So let's just do it.
>> I believe that we should not spend so much time worrying about the 
>> name that the implementation suffers. 
> I have good reason why I disagree with you here and have data to back 
> myself up. But I would like to get set some official word from the W3C 
> first over the use of "XHTML 5", either from Dan Connolly or Karl 
> Dubost before I go into a lengthy discussion.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#scope
> [2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#xhtml5
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dean Edridge
>
Note:
Sorry, I have just been notified that the XHTML 2 working group is in 
fact open to any one that chooses to join. I obviously went through the 
wrong process recently when I attempted to join and was unsuccessful. I 
apologise for these errors in my post.

Thanks
Dean Edridge
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2007 04:26:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC