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: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:03:36 +0000
Message-ID: <49943A48.3000300@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Excellent start, but "other differences" fails to
identify to which of the vocabularies each point
refers.  It might also be diplomatic to ask the
XHTML2 Working Group whether they feel that they
are "actively defining vocabularies using the same
namespace [as this WG] without coordinating their
efforts", since otherwise we risk being accused of
misrepresenting their opinion.

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Philip TAYLOR wrote:
>> May I respectfully suggest that "unnecessarily" is an
>> unnecessarily emotive word when used in contexts such
>> as the following, and that those seeking to comment
>> on the perceived merits or weaknesses of a draft
>> specification produced by another Working Group should
>> restrict themselves to more neutral (and factual) language ?
> My first stab at more neutral language:
>   http://esw.w3.org/topic/XHTML-namepace
> I expect this to be a significant topic of conversation at the AC 
> meeting in March, and would like to go into the discussion with facts. I 
> will encourage members of the XHTML2 working group to contribute to this 
> list.
>> Philip TAYLOR
> - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 15:06:43 UTC

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