- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:54:05 +0100
- To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Maciej, > 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. Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 22:54:10 UTC