Re: What's the problem? "Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong"

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Basically, the only solution to this issue that should be considered is
>> that we continue using the namespace and the XHTML2 WG use a different
>> namespace.
>
> It is not a useful style of argument to assert that the only
> solution that should be *considered* is the one you favor.
> Certainly there are other solutions that should be considered,
> such as using the same namespace and resolving any compatibility
> issues that might otherwise arise.
>
>
>> Otherwise, I will propose closing the issue.
>
>> Absolutely, keeping this issue open is unnecessary.  The issue is
>> entirely political, with no technical justification for us to keep it
>> open.  It should be closed immediately.  At most, a separate issue
>> should be raised with the XHTML2 WG to make them use an alternative
>> namespace.
>
> That isn't what I propose, actually; what I propose is continuing
> to use the same namespace, but resolving any vocabulary incompatibilities,
> (not language or processing rule incompatibilities, note) either
> by changing XHTML5 or XHTML2 to remove the vocabulary incompatibility,
> or renaming the element or attribute name in one or the other to
> remove the vocabulary incompatibility.

I agree that all solutions should be considered. Including trying to
develop compatible vocabularies. I also propose that the solutions be
evaluated based on technical merits.

One thing that I would like to understand though is why the XHTML2
working group is trying to reuse the same vocabulary as
XHTML1.1/XHTML5 while at the same time developing a language that is
significantly different? I.e. what is the technical downside of using
a separate vocabulary as I think the earlier drafts of XHTML2 did?

/ Jonas

Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 21:16:13 UTC