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: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:25:52 -0500
Message-ID: <49943F80.6000201@intertwingly.net>
To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
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>

Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> Excellent start, but "other differences" fails to
> identify to which of the vocabularies each point
> refers.

This is meant to be a diff(XHTML2,HTML5).  Both vocabularies differ from 
HTML4.  Obviously, I have an opinion as to which differs by more, and 
whether such differences are warranted, but for the moment, I'm simply 
trying to establish the case that no matter what the history and 
motivations are in this case, the place that we are destined to arrive 
at should we continue the current course and speed is two incompatible 
Recommendations.

So XHTML2 differs from HTML5, and HTML5 differs from XHTML2 is all that 
I am trying to establish at this point.

> 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.

I thought I said that that I intended to do exactly that?

In any case, the fact that both the HTML Working Group and the  XHTML2 
Working Group are actively developing a vocabulary is not in dispute. 
The fact that the editors drafts make use of the same namespace is not 
in dispute.

And if we can avoid righteous finger pointing, the fact that these two 
Working Groups are not coordinating our efforts is also something that I 
doubt anybody would care to dispute.

- Sam Ruby

> Philip TAYLOR
> --------
> 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 15:26:26 UTC

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