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

Re: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:47:40 +1000
To: "Dean Edridge" <dean@55.co.nz>, "Chris Adams" <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.tzeidqt7wxe0ny@widsith.local>

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:55:10 +1000, Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz> wrote:

> 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

Indeed, XHTML 2.0 is under development by that group. But there are  
several streams in the world of HTML-derived or HTML-like languages.

> ... And even then it wont be fit for real world consumption.

This depends on what you think is real world consumption. XHTML 2 is  
developed by a group that includes implementors who make real world sales  
to real world companies providing real world content to real world users  
through XHTML 2. It isn't found much "roaming free in the wild", but that  
is a different statement.

> In reality the W3C has all but abandoned the development of "real world  
> XHTML".

No. This group is part of that development.

> ... [people] actually have real world experience in using XHTML on the  
> web

That's insufficient. You need experience implementing browsers and  
authoing tools, writing tutorials, working across device types, across  
scripts, with accessibility, and so on. (Fortunately, that experience  
exists).

> ... 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.

Actually, XHTML 2 *is* used. Not much, not on the open web in any  
significant amount. I don't expect it to be used on the open web for at  
least a number of years, but I don't think we buy ourselves any joy by  
ensuring that if it does succeed we will manage to confuse people.

>> 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 ?

(absurd and illogical, in the context of names, are usually extremely  
subjective and variable)

> The string "HTML" must be kept and be used as part of the naming of both  
> the serialisations.

This is a point on which I agree.

> 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.

We could also evolve HTML 4 and XHTML 1.x (where x is less than 3) into  
HTML 5 and XHTML 1.5. It would seem to make sense. It runs the risk of a  
name clash after we make another 4 versions. It doesn't stop us deciding  
later in the future that XHTML 2 was a success and we need the name to  
work, or was a failure and we can simply move to XHTML 7. But it does  
short-cut a lot of argument about what colour this shed should be, and it  
provides a less antagonistic story about how HTML-WG and XHTML-WG fit into  
the overall universe - and that seems like a useful thing to do.

>> 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.

I would be very interested to see it. If you think it is irrelevant to the  
list, you can send it to me privately.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com   http://snapshot.opera.com - Kestrel (9.5α1)
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2007 05:48:01 GMT

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