- From: Sebastian Schnitzenbaumer <sebastian@dreamlab.net>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:36:52 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
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 number > 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. Thanks, - Sebastian
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 12:37:06 UTC