- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:52:34 -0700
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jun 21, 2007, at 2:07 AM, Jirka Kosek wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: >> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:31 +0200, Jirka Kosek wrote: >> [...] >>>> Would you like me to ask the XHTML 2 Working Group their opinion? >>> Yes, please. >> >> OK... done... >> >> input on name for XML serialization of HTML 5? Dan Connolly >> (Thursday, >> 14 June) >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2007Jun/0010.html > > Not unsurprisingly, it seems that XHTML WG is not willing to give > up or > at least share "XHTML" label: > > http://www.w3.org/2007/06/20-xhtml-minutes#item05 > > "RESOLUTION: We agree that the HTML WG should not use the XHTML > name to > refer to their XML serialization." I think we'll just have to use the name "XHTML" and the XHTML namespace and have this eventually settled by the Director. Given statements like the below, reasoned discussion seems unlikely to be productive: "Mark: I don't see why they need two names. They have HTML5, with two serializations. No need for two names." "Rich: All existing XHTMLs have been modular, and HTML5 is not. It's a mess." "Steven: I believe that XHTML2 is more backwards compatible than HTML5, and I plan to make a document comparing them to demonstrate it." Regards, Maciej
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 09:54:19 UTC