- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:49:06 +0100
- To: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Dean Edridge wrote: > What is there to disagree on? > There are only two reasons why you would omit "XHTML5" from the title of > the spec. > 1) Because the main forces behind the spec would like to have XHTML > deprecated. No, this is not true. As I and others have repeatedly told you, the spec supports both HTML and XHTML equally, and that is not likely to change. > 2) Because people are afraid of upsetting the feelings of the XHTML2 > working group. Well, considering the spec still uses the term "XHTML", depite the fact that the XHTML2 working group have already complained about it, I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about them being upset in regards to this issue. The real reason the spec is called "HTML 5" is because shortly after this group began, the working group resolved to call it that, and because "HTML" can be used to refer to either the vocabulary of the language (which is shared between both serialisations) or the HTML serialisation. In the context of the title, it refers to the vocabulary, rather than the syntax. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 15:49:29 UTC