- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:18:11 -0500
- To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Robert J Burns wrote: > > Hi Jonas, > > On Feb 11, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> >> 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? > > As I said in my earlier message, the XHTML2 WG is being much more > careful about name collisions than this WG. I think the solution there > is for both WG's to be careful about name collisions, to avoid > introducing identical names for new vocabulary and to coordinate the > assignment of new names between the WGs. Irrespective of who is being more careful, perhaps a good first step would be to identify the collisions? Wikis are great for such collaborative efforts. I note that both working groups have a wiki: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/xhtml2/wiki/Main_Page Anybody care to take a first stab at such a list? - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 22:18:48 UTC