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: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:18:11 -0500
Message-ID: <49934EA3.5090307@intertwingly.net>
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Robert J Burns wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
> On Feb 11, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> 
>> wrote:
>>>> Basically, the only solution to this issue that should be considered is
>>>> that we continue using the namespace and the XHTML2 WG use a different
>>>> namespace.
>>> It is not a useful style of argument to assert that the only
>>> solution that should be *considered* is the one you favor.
>>> Certainly there are other solutions that should be considered,
>>> such as using the same namespace and resolving any compatibility
>>> issues that might otherwise arise.
>>>> Otherwise, I will propose closing the issue.
>>>> Absolutely, keeping this issue open is unnecessary.  The issue is
>>>> entirely political, with no technical justification for us to keep it
>>>> open.  It should be closed immediately.  At most, a separate issue
>>>> should be raised with the XHTML2 WG to make them use an alternative
>>>> namespace.
>>> That isn't what I propose, actually; what I propose is continuing
>>> to use the same namespace, but resolving any vocabulary 
>>> incompatibilities,
>>> (not language or processing rule incompatibilities, note) either
>>> by changing XHTML5 or XHTML2 to remove the vocabulary incompatibility,
>>> or renaming the element or attribute name in one or the other to
>>> remove the vocabulary incompatibility.
>> I agree that all solutions should be considered. Including trying to
>> develop compatible vocabularies. I also propose that the solutions be
>> evaluated based on technical merits.
>> One thing that I would like to understand though is why the XHTML2
>> working group is trying to reuse the same vocabulary as
>> XHTML1.1/XHTML5 while at the same time developing a language that is
>> significantly different? I.e. what is the technical downside of using
>> a separate vocabulary as I think the earlier drafts of XHTML2 did?
> As I said in my earlier message, the XHTML2 WG is being much more 
> careful about name collisions than this WG. I think the solution there 
> is for both WG's to be careful about name collisions, to avoid 
> introducing identical names for new vocabulary and to coordinate the 
> assignment of new names between the WGs.

Irrespective of who is being more careful, perhaps a good first step 
would be to identify the collisions?  Wikis are great for such 
collaborative efforts.  I note that both working groups have a wiki:


Anybody care to take a first stab at such a list?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 22:18:48 UTC

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