Re: Why XHTML 5 is a bad name...

on 6/26/07 3:24 PM, Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer at sebastian@dreamlab.net
wrote:

> 
> 
> ... because it violates the principle
> of cognitive dissonance. Things that
> are different should be named different.
> XHTML 2 and XHTML 5 are two totally
> different animals, whilst the outside
> impression would be that XHTML 5
> is the successor of XHTML 2, which
> isn't the case since its a fork.
> 
> Use case: Common Sense.
> 
> Will result in: Even More Confusion.
> 
> Suggestion: Rename XHTML 5 into
> something different.
> 
> - Sebastian
> 
> 

+1

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 23:42:27 UTC