- From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 21:07:32 +1200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: Chris Adams <chris@tuesdaybegins.com>, public-html@w3.org
Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > >> 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. > > We could also evolve HTML 4 and XHTML 1.x (where x is less than 3) > into HTML 5 and XHTML 1.5. It would seem to make sense. It runs the > risk of a name clash after we make another 4 versions. It doesn't stop > us deciding later in the future that XHTML 2 was a success and we need > the name to work, or was a failure and we can simply move to XHTML 7. > But it does short-cut a lot of argument about what colour this shed > should be, and it provides a less antagonistic story about how HTML-WG > and XHTML-WG fit into the overall universe - and that seems like a > useful thing to do. > It most certainly would not make sense Charles. XHTML 5 is based on HTML 5 (they are the same language) so it has more in common with HTML 5 than any other language. XHTML 5 is simply just the XML serialisation of HTML 5 Therefore it should be called XHTML 5 just like it is in the spec today. There would be nothing gained by pretending that it is some sort of *direct* extension to XHTML1.x(it's a whole lot better than that :) ). Although the (X)HTML spec remains backwards compatible, it is in fact a thorough over hall and vast improvement to the current HTML and XHTML languages. It would be wrong to market it as just a simple 'tidy up' of existing languages. Lets put the past behind us and have a fresh start with markup on the web and use HTML 5 & XHTML 5 ! :-) -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2007 09:07:43 UTC