- From: Arun <arun.ranganathan@corp.aol.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:01:18 -0700
- To: public-html@w3.org
- CC: Dylan Smith <qstage@cox.net>, Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net>
Note that HTML evolved numerically all the way to HTML4.01 (with notable milestones such as 3.2), but XHTML started with 1.0. And primarily, we're starting with HTML4 and evolving it, thus the "5" does make some sense. I suppose we could go about saying "an XML serialization of HTML5" but that's a real mouthful. XHTML5 could be considered a logical evolution of XHTML1.0, but not of XHTML2. Ultimately, I'm not really sure this will spawn as much confusion in the world as it sounds like -- those that use XHTML2 are making a conscious choice to use it in various environments that don't include contemporary popular web browsers used by the masses. And authors of common web pages will use features as they are introduced and supported. If someone comes up with a great proposal, I'm all for it, but I'm not terribly worried about confusion yet (speaking on behalf of a company that authors web pages). A strawman might be "HTML5 as XML" (since when we use that, we're supposed to use a strict mimetype anyway). Dylan Smith wrote: > > > 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 Wednesday, 27 June 2007 00:02:11 UTC