Vendor Support for XHTML2 [was Re: role cardinality [was: Re: ARIA Proposal ]]

On 1 Oct 2007, at 2331, Robert Burns wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2007, at 3:06 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:36:37 +0200, Richard Schwerdtfeger  
>> <> wrote:
>>> Thanks. The tricky thing is that XHTML 1.x modularization also  
>>> uses the
>>> same namespace. So, when we introuce  
>>> aria-
>>> properties for xhtml serialization they also show up there. So,  
>>> there is
>>> serialization for html and then the xhtml modularization work .  
>>> How is that coordinated?
>> Seems like an issue for W3C management to solve. (Personally I've  
>> always wondered why the HTML WG did not automatically inherit all  
>> documents that dealt with the XHTML namespace, but so be it.) This  
>> issue was raised before when it became evident that the XHTML2 WG  
>> might be using the XHTML namespace for XHTML 2.0, but no decision  
>> has been made as far as I can tell. As far as most browser vendors  
>> are concerned this is all highly theoretical though last time I  
>> checked as none of them has any intentions of implementing XHTML 2.0.
>> (I think the XHTML Modularization is not for implementors, but for  
>> specification writers, although this is not entirely clear to me.  
>> Another thing is that it builds on top of HTML 4.01, which is  
>> being revised by the HTML WG.)
> I don't think any of us know the intentions of any of the browser  
> vendors and I'm not sure its relevant to the discussion. For the  
> proprietary vendors, most of them have policies that they will not  
> make forward looking pronouncements about products. For the open  
> source projects, they're much too de-centered to determine what  
> will happen. You may have knowledge about Opera, though I suspect  
> you may have even been required to sign an NDA for Opera as well. 

Mozilla, Apple, and Opera publicly rejected the W3C's XHTML2 in  
favour of WHATWG's HTML5 some time ago.


Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 06:37:09 UTC