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: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:31:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4999F73E.3050105@intertwingly.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Larry Masinter wrote:
> (I don't know how I managed to attract action items to re-review issues
> long since beaten-to-death, but I'm trying to deal with them in good
> faith and hoping bring a fresh perspective. Sometimes this means rehashing 
> things, I'm afraid.)
> 
>> ISSUE-4 is whether or not HTML5 needs a versioning mechanism; the WHATWG 
>> position is no.  Those that do feel that there needs to be a versioning 
>> mechanism (e.g., Microsoft) seem motivated to find a solution that works 
>> with the HTML serialization of HTML 5.
> 
> I had proposed closing ISSUE-60, based on a misunderstanding, and
> I'm trying to explain why I now think it needs to remain open.
> 
> My view was that ISSUE-60 on namespaces could be addressed if there
> is a versioning mechanism which can disambiguate between different
> languages that share the same namespace (as a possible resolution
> to ISSUE-4). If not, ISSUE-60 should remain open with action items
> to coordinate between the W3C working groups defining the different
> languages which share the same namespace. Note that I am not
> proposing that the action item on ISSUE-60 should be "change
> the namespace", but rather on coordination.  

Will this action suffice http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/105 ?

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 23:31:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:31 GMT