Re: supporting both formats html5 & xhtml5 re:

Dean Edridge wrote:
 > There are only two reasons why you would omit "XHTML5" from the title 
 > of the spec.

I think I got a reason #3 which seems reasonable.

If we discuss wether "XHTML5" should be included in the spec title or 
not we may as well discuss wether "DOM5" should be included as well or 
not. It's the same thing with DOM Storage and SQL Databases.

However, it seems XHTML doesn't share its fear of not being mentioned in 
the spec title. I wonder why?

IMHO, the name of the spec isn't that important. Important is, what the 
spec defines, and this is both: HTML5 and XHTML5. And as we've seen it 
actually defines even more than that.

See, I could write "Dean Edridge" on anything. Yet - I think everyone 
agrees - there's much more behind.


Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 22:24:29 UTC