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


> 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.

I think you're going to have to do better than "matches better" to
justify this. We're not talking about socks and ties.

Everyone I've heard talk on HTML 5 is actually critical of XML.
Usually it's along the lines that namespaces are a mess, or that
browsers shouldn't have to use an XML processing model (I agree with
both, by the way). But also we've been told for years that we
shouldn't actually use XML representations of HTML.

That's all fair enough, and people are entitled to pursue things
however they think best. But it's a little rich now to come from this
viewpoint and say that you want to create version 5 of XHTML.

If the primary language is HTML 5, of which there is an XML
serialisation, then there is nothing wrong with calling that
serialisation something like HTML 5 (XML), or HTML 5/XML, or whatever.
But XHTML has been a separate *language* (as opposed to a separate
serialisation) since XHTML 1.1, and calling the XML serialisation of
HTML 5 by the name of XHTML 5 is just seeking to cause confusion for
the sake of it.



  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 |

  standards. innovation.

Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 22:54:10 UTC