- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:21:49 -0500
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 16:47 -0500, Shane McCarron wrote: > 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. I see. I'm standing by to see if that's the position of the XHTML 2 WG. I'm offering to relay comments from the XHTML 2 WG as a whole. For individual positions, feel free to contribute them to the HTML WG directly (public-html@w3.org ). > > 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. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 09:21:56 UTC