- From: Nicolas LE GALL <me@neovov.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:47:48 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer a écrit : > ... because it violates the principle > of cognitive dissonance. I'm right with that, but HTML and XHTML isn't only for developers. I think keeping simple is the best way. Explaining that XHTML 1.0 is the same thing that HTML 4.01 but a serialized version at someone who don't know the difference between SGML and XML is painful and no-sense (in fact I test it and the result was big eyes and a weird face). In fact they don't care, they want something working. I'm OK for a serialized version of HTML5, but it should be explained clearly. And the name has to be clear too. If XHTML 1.0 is a serialized version of HTML 4.01 telling that XHTML5 is a serialized version of HTML5 is very simple but confusing _only_ for developers who know XHTML history. Here are my comments about proposed names : Karl Dubost a écrit : > html5x Clear, but why XHTML isn't called html1x or html2x ? So it will be confusing. > html5/xml Looking like mime type, and I think it will be too confusing. > html5 as xml Quite good, but too long. Michael A. Puls II a écrit : > HTML5_XML > HTML5-XML > HTML5+XML I like those, I prefer HTML5+XML because it sound like an added value. > HTML5/XML Same comment that Karl's proposition. > HTML5[XML] > HTML5(XML) > HTML5.XML I think these are too complicated.
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 07:47:50 UTC