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.

Please...

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 http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/