- From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:33:32 +1200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Chris Adams <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>, public-html@w3.org
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:55:10 +1000, Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz> wrote: > >> 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 > > Indeed, XHTML 2.0 is under development by that group. But there are > several streams in the world of HTML-derived or HTML-like languages. > Don't cut my quotes short and leave out the relevant areas that people reading this will need to see please Charles . I never said that XHTML *wasn't* being developed by the XHTML 2 working group. I said: > 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. -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2007 08:33:45 UTC