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

Re: HTML5 differences from HTML4 editor's draft (XHTML5 and XHTML2)

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:44:39 -0700
Message-Id: <6EF0DC1B-9F6C-40B4-BDC8-2B7DDEF1117C@robburns.com>
To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org

> On Jun 15, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>>
>> XHTML5 needs to use the same namespace as XHTML 1.0 to maintain  
>> compatibility. Since XHTML2 doesn't have compatibility as a goal,  
>> I don't see why they need or want to reuse the namespace. But if  
>> they want to use the same namespace as XHTML5 it probably does not  
>> matter, since it's unlikely any implementation will be supporting  
>> both at once.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Maciej

I don't think XHTML2 has a goal to break compatibility (that's  
largely been a misunderstanding floating around the community). My  
understanding was that it had intended to maintain the HTML namespace  
all along an that the other namespace was simply a temporary one to  
use during the development of the spec. Furthermore XHTML2 maintains  
backwards compatibility with HTML4 and XHTML1 in a way that we do  
not. It has no clean slate policy, but instead tries to maintain  
elements and attributes from prior W3C recommendations.

However, the issue of namespace is one I've thought of raising. It  
strikes me that the redefinition of elements in HTML5 (that keep the  
same names) actually introduces a new namespace (but without properly  
declaring it). In other words, the "i" element is defined completely  
differently than HTML4 defines the "i" element. To me, this means it  
is no longer in the same namespace since the same name now means  
something entirely different. Adding attributes to an element of the  
same name would remain in the same namespace. Further clarifying the  
use and meaning of an element from the HTML namespace would similarly  
preserve the namespace. However, the redefinition of semantics for an  
element really introduces a new namespace.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Saturday, 16 June 2007 13:56:22 GMT

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