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

Re: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:14:57 +0200
Message-ID: <60fe2311fda975fa07f62a5dcdaad6f3@10013.local>
To: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Cc: Adam Nash <adamn@wirespring.com>, public-html@w3.org

2007-09-30 05:20:04 +0200 Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>:

> Why don't you explain how your idea is:
> logic,
> semantic
> simple

In the hope of creating a positive pattern ... I can understand that 
you find your proposal simple. But that a thing appears simple does 
not need to mean that it is completely logical or semantic.

To use 'XHTML 5' would imply that 'XHTML 1' was a wrong name - it 
should rather have been 'XHTML 4'.  To send such a message would be 
confusing. Not to mention the challenge one would have in explaining 
why XHTML 5 doesn't build on XHTML 2. Et cetera.

However, I do not say or imply that your proposal is exempt from 
logics. On the contrary, by advocating the name 'XHTML 5', you tell us 
one important thing - without spelling it out (I don't know if 
unability to explain/discuss an idea is simply a WHATwg bug ...), 
namely this: You want the two formats to be seen as parallell formats. 
And in that I agree with you.

And it is therefore I find 'HTML 5 text' and 'HTML 5 xml' logical 
names for the two formats.

Another advantage with that wording would be that it would put the 
weight on 'HTML 5' - i.e. on HTML. And I think that is the main 
purpose of HTML 5. The main purpose of HTML 5 is to develop the 
'text/html' platform - so to speak.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2007 12:15:15 UTC

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