- From: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:09:46 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
Cameron McCormack wrote: > Dão Gottwald: >> They're all awful. XHTML 1.5 is the only alternative that I see (I was >> just about to propose that until I that it was done before). >> >> Besides, since XHTML2 has its own namespace, I don't think the XHTML2 WG >> is in the position to tell us to not call the XML serialisation of any >> HTML version "XHTML". FWIW, their language identifier is "XHTML2" to >> which they should consequentially append any version number, e.g. >> "XHTML2 1.0". As a reasult, "XHTML 5" (with a space!) is still on option >> for us. > > While this thread is still around, I might point out this page, which > deals with TR version numbers: > > http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions > Its not the XHTML2 WG telling this WG something (at least from my perspective), its that the W3C in general looks pretty silly with two XHTMLs and that doesn't help any of us. The XHTML2 WG has a charter, ratified by the AC, to deliver XHTML2, the charter of this WG, does not mention XHTML 5. Another perspective: Is XHTML 5 the successor of XHTML 2? Of course not. But thats how it looks. And we will have to explain the relationship between those two technologies forever to the outside world. And in addition, over time, we will see both technologies move up in versioning in parallel! For example, while XHTML 5.5 comes along, XHTML 2.1 is also issued, and so on. So give me a break. This is too obvious to be debated. - Sebastian
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 07:09:41 UTC