W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types

From: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:44:06 +1300
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <499B59D6.50108@dean.org.nz>
Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 03:35 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> [...]
>   
>> In conclusion: XHTML5 does not have a new conflict with XHTML2 even if 
>> both use the same namespace. The conflict, insofar as there is one that 
>> matters, already exists between XHTML1 and XHTML2, and exists irrespective 
>> of XHTML5. I believe this issue to therefore be out of scope for the HTML5 
>> specification, and do not propose to do anything about it (except for 
>> changing the "relationship to XHTML2" section if they do indeed publish a 
>> version of XHTML2 that reuses the same namespace).
>>     
>
> It seems they did publish such a draft:
>
> "Change XHTML 2.0 namespace to http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/ 
>   

It seems the idea to change the XHTML2 proposal to the 1999 namespace 
didn't get past the "issue" stage, it wasn't actually implemented into 
the 20060726 draft.

quoting: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/conformance.html#strict
>
> Example of an XHTML 2.0 document
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" 
>                     href="http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/style/xhtml2.css"?>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 2.0//EN"
>     "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml2.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/" xml:lang="en"
>       xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>       xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/
>                           http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/SCHEMA/xhtml2.xsd"
> >
>   <head>
>     <title>Virtual Library</title>
>   </head>
>   <body>
>     <p>Moved to <a href="http://example.org/">example.org</a>.</p>
>   </body>
> </html>
>   

*If* the namespace had been changed prior to the March 2007 charters of 
the HTML WG and XHTML2 WG's, I doubt the W3C would have gone ahead and 
allowed two groups to develop XHTML. I believe that the W3C only allowed 
these two groups to work on XHTML *because* they were using *different 
namespaces*, so for one group (the XHTML2 WG) to change and start using 
the other group's (HTML WG) namespace not just causes unnecessary 
problems for the HTML WG but makes a mockery of the HTML WG and XHTML2 
WG charters IMO.

Dan Connolly wrote:
>
> I'm told it was by popular demand, so perhaps lots of demand
> in the other direction would get it changed.
>
> Myself, I'm content with the "ignore it and see if it
> goes away" approach.
>   

I believe that the HTML WG should formally request that the XHTML2 WG 
change the namespace in the latest XHTML2 Editors Draft back to the 
namespace they were chartered to use (http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/).

Also, I think this is getting too off-topic/political for public-html, I 
hope one of the Chairs can discuss this with the XHTML2 WG and resolve 
the issue.

-- 
Dean Edridge
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 00:44:41 UTC

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