Re: Choosing name for XML serialization

On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 11:53 +1000, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > 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.
> The fact is, whether the XHTML2 WG likes it or not, we are creating a 
> revision of XHTML by extending XHTML 1.x.  Therefore, it is correct for 
> it to be called XHTML.  The XHTML2 WG, on the other hand, has been 
> creating an entirely new language that is unrelated to XHTML 1.x in 
> reality.


Claiming that something is "fact" or "reality" doesn't make it so;
it's argument by assertion and not terribly polite.

You're welcome to your opinion, though it's more helpful to share
the arguments that led you to it.

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 14:22:29 UTC