Re: In this document the term HTML is used to refer to the XHTML dialect of HTML [XHTML].

Elliotte,

    Unfortunately we have already published the Primer as a Working
Group Note, before the comment was received. Apologies for the late
response as well.

    We have inspected the primer for every use of the word "HTML" and we
note that all the early uses are followed by examples that have a
declaration of being XHTML 1.0. The later examples all have an xmlns
decl for XHTM: 1.0. We also explicitly noted this terminological usage,
as you noted.

   There are two other issues at hand, one being that both HTML or XHTML
are both evolving. XHTML2 may not be GRDDL-compatible (we are still
debating this with the XHTML2 WG), while there is a chance the XML
serialization of HTML 5 may be GRDDL compatible. In this regard, we
tried to play it safe by referening XHTML 1.0 explicitly, and then
noting that we were going to use the more informal term "HTML". As
future versions of XHTML and HTML may be GRDDL-compatible, we think this
is the best we could do, and to keep our examples working and clear by
using only XHTML 1.0 in the example.

    Does this satisfy your comment?

   
Elliotte Harold wrote:
>
> A serious editorial note: I find this sentence up front to be
> surprising and a little scary:
>
> "In this document the term HTML is used to refer to the XHTML dialect
> of HTML [XHTML]."
>
> Editorially, this is wrong and likely to be confusing. If you
> specifically mean XHTMl and *not* classic HTML, then you should say at
> each occurrence. Please do not attempt to redefine the well-understood
> term "HTML" to mean something new.
>
> When I read HTML,  I usually think it includes classic HTML and
> well-formed XHTML, but I never think it's only XHTML.
>


-- 
  -harry

Harry Halpin,  University of Edinburgh 
http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 13:59:30 UTC