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

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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 name?

Both, but in the following order: 1) Both use the XHTML name; 2) version 

> 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. 

Well said.

> How about we just share the base language name, and distinguish 
> different versions using version numbers?

I have to say, I am impressed. This is a constructive suggestion. Thank 
you for that, in any case.

In case it is not an option to change the XHTML base name, I do think 
that changing XHTML 5 into XHTML 1.5 is better than doing nothing, yes,
but only if the only other option would be doing nothing, leaving things 
as is.


- Sebastian

Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 12:37:06 UTC