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

On Jun 26, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer 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.

Is your concern about the version number (that is, would XHTML 1.5 or  
something like that make you happy) or just that both use the XHTML  

We could come up with all sorts of arguments why one spec or the  
other "deserves" the XHTML name more, but, seriously, that seems like  
a huge waste of time, and would quickly devolve into an unproductive  
flamewar. How about we just share the base language name, and  
distinguish different versions using version numbers?


Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 06:39:39 UTC