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

On 21 Jun 2007, at 11:52, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Jun 21, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>> It really seems that with regard to XHTML name and XHTML namespace  
>> both
>> WG are not willing to agree on some compromise. Even when there are
>> approaches that IMHO should satisfy both groups (for example using
>> XHTML1.5 for XML serialization of HTML5,
> I think XHTML1.5 would be an OK name and I don't think the HTML WG  
> as a whole would object. But the XHTML2 WG stated that they don't  
> want the XML serialization of HTML5 to use "XHTML" in the name at  
> all. I don't think that is a reasonable request.

On 22 Jun 2007, at 03:26, Ben Boyle wrote:

> There ya go, just call it "xHTML" with a little x.
> Personally I think W3C need to decide if HTML and XHTML are the  
> same language, or represent a variant/fork. The names and version  
> numbers should reflect this. Maybe it really would best to do away  
> with "XHTML" anything and just use HTML5 (and it can be HTML or XML  
> syntax).

Could we not use a different name for the XML version of HTML5? perhaps:


This is using the same theory behind naming FTPS and SFTP, where both  
are two different systems.


Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 13:24:58 UTC