W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > June 2007

Re: input on name for XML serialization of HTML 5?

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:47:46 -0500
Message-ID: <4671B782.3080101@aptest.com>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, public-xhtml2-request@w3.org

Actually, I think that any XHTML name should be based upon the XHTML 
Modularization architecture going forward.  Moreover, given the 
divergent directions HTML and XHTML are going at this point, trying to 
overload the term XHTML can only lead to confusion and frustration among 
our various constituencies.

I feel very strongly that the "xml serialization" of HTML 5 should NOT 
be called anything with XHTML in its name.

Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> Dan, I read the discussion (thanks for the link). XHTML 1.0 beyond 
> XHTML 1.0 (1.1, etc.) is modular.
>
> You had suggested calling XHTML5 XHTML 1.5 made sense to me - but is 
> it modular? If not then html5/XML seems to make sense.
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
> Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer
> Inactive hide details for Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>Dan Connolly 
> <connolly@w3.org>
>
>
>                         *Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>*
>                         Sent by: public-xhtml2-request@w3.org
>
>                         06/14/2007 11:48 AM
>
> 	
>
> To
> 	
> public-xhtml2@w3.org
>
> cc
> 	
> Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
>
> Subject
> 	
> input on name for XML serialization of HTML 5?
>
> 	
>
>
>
> For the XML serialization of HTML5, recent
> drafts in the HTML WG (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/) use "XHTML5".
>
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/html4-differences/Overview.html 
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/html5/html4-differences/Overview.html>
> in progress; WG email discussion of it started 13 June
>
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html 
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/html5/spec/Overview.html>
> in progress; adopted as background text for review 9 May
>
> Karl Dubost wrote...
>
> "Steven Pemberton, from the XHTML 2.0 WG, requested a few times that  
> we do not call it XHTML 5, but something html5x or html5/XML."
> -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0250.html
>
> If you'd like to elaborate on that, or endorse it as a group,
> or anything like that, please do, and let me know, and I'll
> relay it back to the HTML WG. Or you can join the discussion
> directly, if you prefer, either as individuals or as
> a delegated liaison.
>
> Current discussion in the HTML WG includes a variety of viewpoints,
> including Jirka Kosek's
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0260.html
> and Henri Sivonen's
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0255.html
>
> Oh... it's also relevant to note on 9 May the HTML WG
> also decided, formally, that the W3C's next-generation HTML
> specification be named "HTML 5".
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/0909.html
>
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
>
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 21:48:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:46 GMT