Re: Choosing name for XML serialization (Was: Re: HTML5 differences from HTML4 editor's draft (XHTML5 and XHTML2))

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>> Dan Connolly wrote:

>> Not unsurprisingly, it seems that XHTML WG is not willing to give up or
>> at least share "XHTML" label:
>> "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 
> th[os]e below [1], reasoned discussion seems unlikely to be productive:

I disagree : if the XHTML WG do not wish this group to use the label
XHTML, then we should not use it.  You may find the statements below [1]
counter-productive; I find them predictable and understandable (and
I speak as a member of /this/ group, not of the XHTML WG).

Philip Taylor


> "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 15:13:26 UTC