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

On Jun 21, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Philip Taylor (Webmaster) wrote:

>
>
> 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:
>>>
>>> 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 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.

They are the XHTML2 WG, not the XHTML WG. They do not have exclusive  
ownership of the XHTML name, either by charter or for any other reason.


> You may find the statements below [1] counter-productive;

I don't find them counter-productive, just clearly incorrect.

>> "Mark: I don't see why they need two names. They have HTML5, with  
>> two serializations. No need for two names."

This is against precedent of the HTML WG - HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0  
were two serializations of the same language with different names.

>> "Rich: All existing XHTMLs have been modular, and HTML5 is not.  
>> It's a mess."

This is false, XHTML 1.0 is not modular (in the Modularization sense).

>> "Steven: I believe that XHTML2 is more backwards compatible than  
>> HTML5, and I plan to make a document comparing them to demonstrate  
>> it."

This seems to indicate either total unfamiliarity with HTML5 or  
delusion on the part of the speaker. XHTML2 has whole subsystems like  
forms and events handling that are redone in completely different  
ways; there's very little chance of an XHTML1 document functioning  
correctly when processed as XHTML2.

> I find them predictable and understandable (and I speak as a member  
> of /this/ group, not of the XHTML WG).

I too am worried that it may be predictable for the XHTML2 WG to say  
false things, but maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt  
a little longer.


Incidentally, the XHTML2 WG keeps saying that they decided long ago  
to reuse the XHTML1 namespace, but the latest Editor's Draft I could  
find, from April 2007, still has a namespace that is different from  
XHTML1. Maybe they have made an internal change since then. I think  
the namespace is a bigger deal than the name of the XML serlaization.


Regards,
Maciej

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 19:51:30 UTC