Re: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5

Dean Edridge wrote:
> Karl Dubost wrote:
>> Dean Edridge (30 aot 2007 - 20:37) :
>>> To my understanding XHTML 2 is not an XML serialisation of HTML, but 
>>> a whole new language based on XML, not HTML4 or XHTML1.x.
>> Just a clarification point if necessary (and not taking side on this 
>> debate).
>> The "X" in XHTML 1.0 doesn't mean "XML serialization", but extensible.
>>      XHTML 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language
>> Maybe it should have been called "ehtml". :)
>> PS:
>> For now, when I talk about serializations of html5, I use
>>     html5/html
>>     html5/xml
>> and try to use html5 only for the abstract model, not the syntax.
> Yes I know that the X was supposed to stand for extensible. But in 
> reality I think it has come to stand for XML. And this makes a lot 
> more sense as it is the serialisation of the language that really is 
> the difference between HTML and XHTML.
Is it possible to have an update on this please? Can we call the XML 
serialisation of the spec XHTML 5 or not?
I understand that Chris Wilson was going to speak to the XHTML 2 working 
group about this a few weeks ago. What was the outcome of that meeting?
I'd like to know the answers to these questions as I think it is 
something that needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later.

Thank you

Dean Edridge

Received on Friday, 28 September 2007 16:06:20 UTC