- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:31:40 -0700
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- Cc: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>, "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jun 22, 2007, at 1:02 AM, Jirka Kosek wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >>> I would imagine the reaction of the XHTML2 WG is more to the name >>> XHTML5 that would have the effect (whether intended or not) of >>> making >>> XHTML2 seem obsoleted. XHTML1.5 would get around that (while still >>> providing a link to HTML something like java 1.2/ J2EE 2). >> >> I'd love to hear an official statement from the XHTML2 WG to that >> effect. > > Me too. But before asking we probably should make sure that members of > out WG will be happy with XHTML1.5. So long as the XHTML2 WG's official stance is that we shouldn't use the name "XHTML" at all, I prefer XHTML5 since it matches better with HTML5. I don't want to bend over backwards to compromise with a group that does not appear interested in compromise. - Maciej
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 08:32:09 UTC