- From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 10:17:56 -0500
- To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz>, "Craig Francis" <craig@synergycms.com>, "Ben Boyle" <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
HTML and HTMLx ? On 6/23/07, Craig Francis <craig@synergycms.com> wrote: > > 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: > > HTML-XML5 > > This is using the same theory behind naming FTPS and SFTP, where both > are two different systems. > > Craig > > >
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 15:17:59 UTC