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: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:37:20 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f0902111137i26f103a4m6b2a75b521df14fb@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, plh@w3.org

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2009-02-11 10:10 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
>> Generally namespaces name vocabularies and not languages that use
>> those vocabularies; generally, versioning of languages is handled
>> independently through some other mechanism (e.g., DOCTYPE as per
>> ISSUE-4, which we will discuss soon although I've put it off), and
>> generally, reuse of a namespace in a new version of a language is
>> perfectly appropriate.
> I would go further than merely saying reuse of a namespace is
> appropriate.  I would say that using a new namespace for the same
> vocabulary is *inappropriate*, for reasons I described in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Feb/0018.html
> (So I support your proposal to close the issue.)

Agreed on both accounts.

However there is definitely an issue to solve, and that is how to
solve the fact that both the HTML WG and the XHTML2 WG are defining
next versions of XHTML1.1. And doing so in incompatible ways (i.e.
neither spec is a strict superset of the other).

But I believe that Philippe is working on resolving that issue [1].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/0074.html

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 19:42:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:42 UTC