Re: HTML5 differences from HTML4 editor's draft (XHTML5 and XHTML2)

Dan Connolly wrote:
>> Seems pretty strange to use term XHTML5 without approval from XHTML
>>  WG, especially if you know that they don't think that XML 
>> serialization of HTML5 should be called XHTML5.
> I'm aware of a certain amount of tension around these names... but I 
> don't think it helps much to refer obliquely to opinions of others.
> If you have an opinion on the matter, would you please let us know 
> your preference plainly?
> Would you like me to ask the XHTML 2 Working Group their opinion?

Yes, please. May be W3C has same plan how to assign version numbers to
different language that want to be named XHTML x.y. But if there is no
such plan I think that our WG should work together with XHTML2 WG to
agree on naming rules.

Karl Dubost wrote:
> Steven Pemberton, from the XHTML 2.0 WG, requested a few times that 
> we do not call it XHTML 5, but something html5x or html5/XML.

I think that using different name than XHTML will be confusing because
relation between XHTML1.0 and XHTML5 is very similar to relation between
HTML4.01 and HTML5.

At the same time it will be confusing to use XHTML5 when XHTML2 will
break evolution path:

XHTML1.0/1.1 is in namespace

XHTML2 is currently in namespace and
it is not backward compatible with XHTML1.0/1.1

XHTML5 is in namespace and it is more or
less compatible with XHTML1.0/1.1

In this case it seems more logical to use XHTML1.5 instead of XHTML5.
Numbering scheme could be very simple: XML serialization of HTMLx.y
(where x >= 5) will be named XHTML1.x.y. Yes the version numbers are not
completely same, this is not ideal. But web developers are used to this
as XHTML1.0 corresponded to HTML4.01.

Henri Sivonen wrote:
> XHTML5 is already what it is referred to and it is the simplest name.

Standardization work is consensus building. I don't see how consensus is
built by flooding Google indexes by term which one group of people prefers.

> Moreover,

Yes, if XHTML2 WG will stop using "XHTML" label for their language, then
I don't see any problem in using XHTML5 and it will be the best option
then. But are they willing to do it? If not and if HTML and XHTML2 WG
couldn't find agreement on naming scheme who will resolve it?

Anyway, whether it will be named "XHTML5", "XHTML1.5", "HTML5/XML" or
whatever, it is just label, no reason for argument. I just feel little
bit strange of using XHTML5 without approval from XHTML WG and then
saying, hey Google knows zillions pages about XHTML5 so we will use this
name anyway.


  Jirka Kosek      e-mail:
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
Be in, register for XML Prague 2007 today!

Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 08:31:45 UTC