W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

RE: What's the problem? "Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong"

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:27:00 -0800
To: "Edward O'Connor" <hober0@gmail.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118C85AC98A@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>
Yes, with respect to ISSUE-60, I think the right action is to close
this issue, and raise as independent issues each separate disagreement
about vocabulary, between the XHTML2 specification and the HTML5
specification.

I don't think it is necessary for HTML5 and XHTML2 to be the same
language in order for them to share vocabularies, and that if they're
different (a whole other discussion, please don't start it)  that a 
resolution of disagreements about vocabulary might involve changing
one specification or another, either to make the vocabulary terms
coherent or to change one or the other's element/attribute names
in order that the languages might share vocabularies.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



-----Original Message-----
From: Edward O'Connor [mailto:hober0@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 10:19 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: HTML WG
Subject: Re: What's the problem? "Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong"

Hi Larry,

> I accepted ACTION-79 on ISSUE 60, "Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is
> potentially misleading/wrong", which was to send an email sparking a
> discussion of this issue.
>
> I'm searching around for some email or writeup which would explain why this
> was raised as an issue, but I haven't really found any with a justification
> for why something that is "potentially" a problem might actually *be* a
> problem, and raised as an issue without further substantiation.

I /think/ the issue is that the XHTML2 working group also plans to
reuse the 1998 XHTML namespace in its XHTML 2.x specifications, but
I'm not sure.

> Can anyone explain why this issue should remain open in its current form?

Assuming I'm right above, I don't think the issue should remain open
in its current form--it's more of a political, "the WGs were chartered
to compete" [1] issue, and not a technical one.

> Otherwise, I will propose closing the issue.

Sounds good to me.


Ted

1. http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-tagmem-minutes.html#item06 
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 18:27:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC