- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:49:27 +1000
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Robert Burns wrote: > On Jul 15, 2007, at 7:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> Is there a draft of XHTML2 yet that uses the XHTML1 namespace? ... > > My understanding was that the current namespace is used as a convenience > or temporary namesapce placeholder. That is until the draft reaches a > certain status, it is expected to use this other temporary namespace. > If I understand correctly this temporary namespace had nothing to do > with the eventual aim of the WG. In other words it wasn't meant to be > read s not using the original HTML namespace. It doesn't really matter if the XHTML2 WG attempt to reuse the XHTML1 namespace, they will fail if they try. As I, and others, have explained previously, XHTML2 is fundamentally incompatible with XHTML1 and simply cannot reuse its namespace without breaking compatibility. If they do reuse the namespace, it will be impossible for a UA to support both XHTML1 and XHTML2 at the same time, and so it is both unnecessary and impossible for XHTML5 to be compatible with XHTML2 by design. Even if they don't reuse the namespace, XHTML2 is designed for a completely different market from XHTML1/XHTML5, and (even though it would be theoretically possible) it seems unlikely that both will be implemented side by side anyway. So I'd like to remind everyone that XHTML2 is completely irrelevant and unrelated to XHTML5 and that attempting to design for compatibility between them is not a goal. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 01:49:38 UTC