- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:37:44 +1000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > 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. The current spec states [1]: This specification is intended to replace (be the new version of) what was previously the HTML4, XHTML 1.x, and DOM2 HTML specifications. and [2]: This specification represents a new version of HTML4 and XHTML1, [...] Migration from HTML4 or XHTML1 to the format and APIs described in this specification should in most cases be straightforward, as care has been taken to ensure that backwards-compatibility is retained. which supports my assertion that we are extending XHTML 1.x. As for my claim that XHTML2 is unrelated to XHTML1... > it's more helpful to share the arguments that led you to it. I believe I provided sufficient evidence in the remainder of my message that clearly demonstrated several instances where XHTML2 is significantly different from, and incompatible with, XHTML1. [1] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/#status [2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-scope.html#relationship -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 14:38:10 UTC