Re: Choosing a name for the HTML5 XML serialization, was: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5

Dean Edridge wrote:
> 
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Just two thoughts here:
>>
>> - If the HTML WG thinks that the name is not important, then, it 
>> seems, the right way to address this is to stop using it and make the 
>> XHTML WG happy.
> 
>> - If the HTML WG thinks that the name is not important, then.....
> 
> The HTML WG does not think it is "not important". There's almost 500 
> people in this group. We haven't had a vote on it.

Perhaps one of the joint Chairmen could advise the group on how
an individual member may move a motion, which if seconded and
supported, will lead to a binding vote.  I find it somewhat
unsatisfactory that issues as important as "What should we
publish first ?" are subjected only to a "informal poll"
rather than a binding vote (Dan C wrote : "It was an informal
poll rather than a binding decision, so I wouldn't use the word
"agreed", but that's a quibble..."), and I think this may explain
why (as far as I can tell), this group has so far agreed to very
little apart from its starting point.

> - Since some people seem to think that the W3C has abandoned XHTML in 
> favour for HTML [1][2][3]. I think the naming issue is important. We 
> need to send a clear message to the public telling them that we are 
> working on XHTML, not just HTML and they will be able to use it in the 
> future alongside HTML5 under the name XHTML5.
> 
>> ....make the XHTML WG happy.
> 
> - They *aren't* the XHTML WG. If any one is, it's us.

Are we ?  That was not my intention when I joined.  I understood
that this group was discussing HTML 5, and whilst it is perfectly
at liberty to discuss an XML serialisation, that does not (IMHO)
make it "The XHTML Working Group", which (even if technically
inaccurate -- it should be "The XHTML2 Working Group") is something
quite distinct [1].

Philip TAYLOR
--------
[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 17:36:31 UTC