W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Re: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5

From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:55:10 +1200
To: Chris Adams <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <46FDCC9E.1020904@55.co.nz>

Chris Adams wrote:
> XHTML 5 in my opinion could never work merely for the fact that the 
> XHTML group will be out in the cold in a good many years when version 
> 5 rolls around....
XHTML 5 is the only name that would really work.

> ...the fact that the XHTML group will be out in the cold...
*We are* in essence the XHTML working group [1]  :-)

> when version 5 rolls around....
It's not rolling anywhere Chris :-) It's already here [2] and people are 
using XHTML 5 already.

You seem to be under the impression that XHTML is being developed by the 
XHTML 2 working group and we should all sit around and wait for them to 
hand it to us one day in 2023 or something. And even then it wont be fit 
for real world consumption. In reality the W3C has all but abandoned the 
development of "real world XHTML". There has been more progress achieved 
on XHTML in the last few years by the WHATWG than by anyone else. This 
is due in part to the fact that members/contributors of the WHATWG 
actually have real world experience in using XHTML on the web and have 
written their spec to reflect this. It is my opinion that the future 
success of XHTML will be determined by this group(public-html) and the 
WHATWG not the XHTML 2 working group. The XHTML 2 spec is currently 
being designed behind closed  doors with no input from the public or 
browser manufactures. This is a REAL problem and is very unlikely to 
cause the XHTML 2 spec to never be used on the real web leading to the 
W3C abandoning XHTML 2. So any talk of possible naming conflicts between 
XHTML 2 and XHTML 5 are quite irrelevant and hold no weight.
> as Adam suggested HTXML could work,  or perhaps HTML-XML.
No, that wouldn't work. Why would we want to use such absurd and 
non-logical acronyms for a spec that is an extension for XHTML1.x and  
The string "HTML" must be kept and be used as part of the naming of both 
the serialisations.

This is the way it should be:
   HTML 5 (text/html)
XHTML 5 (application/xhtml+xml) or (application/xml)

It's simple, semantic. So let's just do it.
> I believe that we should not spend so much time worrying about the 
> name that the implementation suffers. 
I have good reason why I disagree with you here and have data to back 
myself up. But I would like to get set some official word from the W3C 
first over the use of "XHTML 5", either from Dan Connolly or Karl Dubost 
before I go into a lengthy discussion.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#scope
[2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#xhtml5

Best regards,

Dean Edridge
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2007 03:55:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:22 UTC