Re: Choosing name for XML serialization

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

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.


Lachlan Hunt

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 14:38:10 UTC