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

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 

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 
> 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 :
I like those, I prefer HTML5+XML because it sound like an added value.
Same comment that Karl's proposition.
I think these are too complicated.

Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 07:47:50 UTC