- From: Edward O'Connor <hober0@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:19:05 -0800
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Larry, > I accepted ACTION-79 on ISSUE 60, "Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is > potentially misleading/wrong", which was to send an email sparking a > discussion of this issue. > > I'm searching around for some email or writeup which would explain why this > was raised as an issue, but I haven't really found any with a justification > for why something that is "potentially" a problem might actually *be* a > problem, and raised as an issue without further substantiation. I /think/ the issue is that the XHTML2 working group also plans to reuse the 1998 XHTML namespace in its XHTML 2.x specifications, but I'm not sure. > Can anyone explain why this issue should remain open in its current form? Assuming I'm right above, I don't think the issue should remain open in its current form--it's more of a political, "the WGs were chartered to compete" [1] issue, and not a technical one. > Otherwise, I will propose closing the issue. Sounds good to me. Ted 1. http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-tagmem-minutes.html#item06
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 18:19:40 UTC