- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:29:33 +0300
- To: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Jul 3, 2007, at 10:09, Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer wrote: > its that the W3C in general looks pretty silly with two XHTMLs ... > Another perspective: Is XHTML 5 the successor of XHTML 2? > Of course not. But thats how it looks. XHTML5 is a successor of XHTML 1.0, though, if you look at it from the authoring or implementation perspective. > So give me a break. This is too obvious to be debated. You seem to be making a case that the naming of XHTML2 is confusing considering that the vast majority of people out there (for good reason) think of XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 when they say "XHTML". (Note that even though you seem to actually be making the case that the naming of XHTML2 is the root of confusion, I am not suggesting that the XHTML2 WG change the name of their deliverable.) The currently implemented [to the extent implementable] REC version of XHTML is 1.0. It is known as the (re)formulation of HTML in XML. This makes calling it too obvious to be debated that "XHTML" means "(re)formulation of HTML in XML" and conversely a "(re)formulation of HTML in XML" should be called "XHTML". -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 07:29:41 UTC