W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Misleading title for XHTML 1.x mime type document - take three

From: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:35:54 +1300
To: public-xhtml2@w3.org
Message-id: <4982F42A.90007@dean.org.nz>


Can someone please tell me why the XHTML 1.x media type note has not 
been changed to address the concerns that I brought to the attention of 
the working group? I expect the XHTML2 working group to make the 
requested changes to the document ASAP.

On 24 Dec, Dean Edridge wrote:

> regarding: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-xhtml-media-types-20081126/
> * I request that the XHTML 2 WG make it clear that these guidelines only 
> apply to XHTML 1.x. and that this document only represents the opinions 
> of the XHTML 2 WG, and not the W3C.
> * I also request that the document be re-titled to some thing more 
> appropriate like "Media types for XHTML 1.x" or something similar.

Then later in the message:

On 24 Dec, Dean Edridge wrote:

> There's some other things that I'm concerned about:
> > This document has been produced by the W3C XHTML 2 Working Group
> Why is the XHTML 2 WG writing a document like this? The XHTML 2 WG are 
> not the only working group developing XHTML. I noticed that the last 
> XHTML media type note was published by the W3C's HTML WG, but there has 
> not been any coordination with the HTML WG this time. The XHTML 2 WG 
> does not have the authority to say what's right and wrong for XHTML when 
> others are developing XHTML specifications. The XHTML 2 WG are only 
> working on eXtensible HTML4, the HTML WG is working on eXtensible HTML5 
> (and the non eXtensible variant), the information that is mentioned in 
> this "XHTML media type" document contradicts what is published in the 
> HTML5 spec [4], so it will have to be changed so it's clear that the 
> guidelines only apply to XHTML 1.x.
> [...]
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/introduction.html#authors-using-xhtml

Then came the teleconference on the 14th after the issue was brushed 
aside the week before.
quoting: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/14-xhtml-minutes.html
> XHTML Media Types draft
> We received a late comment: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Dec/0020.html
> [...]
> Shane: Good comment from this guy, as far as I can interpret
> ... He thinks we should rename the document to Media types for XHTML 1.x
> Roland: Sounds right

Correct; so why hasn't the document's title been changed?

> Shane: Well Print and XHTML+RDFa wouldn't be covered then

That's not a legitimate excuse. Those spec's *should* be called XHTML1.x 
print and "RDFa in XHTML1.1 etc. The XHTML2 WG is not chartered to make 
generic XHTML specifications, the XHTML2 WG is only chartered to 
maintain XHTML 1.[0-1] and develop XHTML 2.0. Some people are using RDFa 
in the XHTML variant of HTML5, so any specifications that the XHTML2 WG 
produces will need to have a specific version number attached to it so 
there's no confusion. So calling the document "Media types for XHTML 
1.x" wouldn't be a problem then.

> Roland: It is now called XHTML Media types
> Tina: Keep it as it is and say that it only applies to existing Recs

Well, that clearly doesn't address the concerns I have raised Tina.

> Steven: Notes are never normative

So what? Doesn't matter if it's a note, draft or a W3C recommendation, 
it still misleads people so it *must* be changed.

> <alessio> agree
> Steven: We should say that it just applies to existing recs

No, there needs to be something in the title that indicates the document 
is for XHTML 1.x only, and that it does not relate to the HTML5 spec or 
any other version of XHTML. I don't see why the XHTML2 WG doesn't just 
call it "Media types for XHTML 1" , "XHTML 1 Media Types" or something 
like I have suggested above. And the URL will need to be changed to 
something like:


Surely the XHTML2 WG does not wish to mislead people, cause problems for 
the HTML WG, and confuse the many people out there that are going to be 
using HTML5 in the future. Please change the title of the document like 
I have asked.

Dean Edridge
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 12:36:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:30:31 UTC