- From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:46:49 +1200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Karl Dubost wrote: > > > Dean Edridge (30 août 2007 - 20:37) : >> To my understanding XHTML 2 is not an XML serialisation of HTML, but >> a whole new language based on XML, not HTML4 or XHTML1.x. > > Just a clarification point if necessary (and not taking side on this > debate). > The "X" in XHTML 1.0 doesn't mean "XML serialization", but extensible. > > XHTML™ 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ > > Maybe it should have been called "ehtml". :) > > PS: > For now, when I talk about serializations of html5, I use > html5/html > html5/xml > and try to use html5 only for the abstract model, not the syntax. > > Yes I know that the X was supposed to stand for extensible. But in reality I think it has come to stand for XML. And this makes a lot more sense as it is the serialisation of the language that really is the difference between HTML and XHTML. -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/
Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 04:46:59 UTC