How to name the XML serialization of HTML5, was: The only name for the xml serialisation of html5

Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> ...
> In the hope of creating a positive pattern ... I can understand that you 
> find your proposal simple. But that a thing appears simple does not need 
> to mean that it is completely logical or semantic.
> 
> To use 'XHTML 5' would imply that 'XHTML 1' was a wrong name - it should 
> rather have been 'XHTML 4'.  To send such a message would be confusing. 
> Not to mention the challenge one would have in explaining why XHTML 5 
> doesn't build on XHTML 2. Et cetera.

Right.

> However, I do not say or imply that your proposal is exempt from logics. 
> On the contrary, by advocating the name 'XHTML 5', you tell us one 
> important thing - without spelling it out (I don't know if unability to 
> explain/discuss an idea is simply a WHATwg bug ...), namely this: You 
> want the two formats to be seen as parallell formats. And in that I 
> agree with you.
> 
> And it is therefore I find 'HTML 5 text' and 'HTML 5 xml' logical names 
> for the two formats.

Yes. These would have the benefit to show that it's the same language, 
but only a different serialization (MIME type).

> Another advantage with that wording would be that it would put the 
> weight on 'HTML 5' - i.e. on HTML. And I think that is the main purpose 
> of HTML 5. The main purpose of HTML 5 is to develop the 'text/html' 
> platform - so to speak.

I wouldn't agree with that. Standardizing tag soup parsing is just one 
of the aspects; DOM clarifications and new elements are others.

Here's another proposal for those who don't like Leif's proposal: call 
it HTXML (HyperText eXtensible Markup Language).

BR, Julian

Received on Sunday, 30 September 2007 12:52:19 UTC