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: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:10:34 -0800
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <21E18768-AD73-4A22-BF20-DDE922E8E77E@apple.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:06 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

>> I think you are needlessly tying ISSUE-60 and ISSUE-4 here. ISSUE-60
>> requests a change of the XML namespace used by HTML5, to avoid
>> conflict with XHTML2.
> I am pointing out a way in which the issues are linked: they both
> have to deal with distinguishing languages that share a common
> namespace, and secondly, that a good solution to the versioning
> issue would also deal with the namespace issue.
> By pointing out the link between the two issues, I'm hoping to
> influence the decision on the versioning issue -- choose a versioning
> mechanism that would also deal with the namespace issue.
> So I don't think tying them together is "needless", I'm hoping
> that it will make a positive influence in choosing good
> solution(s) for versioning -- ones that address both issues.
> In particular, I'm hoping to avoid the deadlock where the solution
> to versioning is "use namespaces" and the solution to namespaces
> is "use versioning" and we make no progress on either issue.

I'm not sure anyone would take that position. I expect most of those  
who feel a versioning mechanism is unnecessary and/or harmful, would  
also prefer not to ever change the namespace URI. I think the position  
is not that each is a solution to the other but rather that in neither  
case is there an actual problem that needs solving.

I guess the bottom line is this: do we have any Working Group members  
who favor changing the namespace URI used by HTML5, or think it is a  
solution even worth considering? If so, then let us discuss the pros  
and cons of changing the namespace URI. If not, then let us close this  
issue and move on.

I think keeping ISSUE-60 open just to exercise influence on ISSUE-4,  
even though no one apparently wants to do what ISSUE-60 asks for, is  
not an appropriate way of managing issues. We keep issues open when  
there is potentially a need to change the spec, and therefore a need  
to make a decision, not to influence the resolution of other issues.

In this case, we should make a note that when resolving ISSUE-4, we  
should consider the impact on XHTML dialects like XHTML2, that are not  
direct predecessors or successors to HTML5. Unless someone wants to  
seriously speak in favor of changing the namespace URI.

Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 23:11:22 UTC

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