- From: Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:51:56 +1300
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > > Irrespective of who is being more careful, perhaps a good first step > would be to identify the collisions? Why? I don't think this is necessary. > > Anybody care to take a first stab at such a list? No thanks, the XHTML2 WG should use another namespace like Lachlan pointed out earlier: Earlier in the thread - Lachlan Hunt 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. > > [...] > > At most, a separate issue should be raised with the XHTML2 WG to make > them use an alternative namespace. When the XHTML2 WG and the HTML WG were chartered back in 2007, XHTML2 and XHTML5 were using different namespaces, if they weren't, I doubt very much that the W3C would have gone ahead and chartered two groups to work on XHTML. The XHTML2 WG can't just decide one day that they are going to use the same namespace as HTML5 then expect the HTML5 community to sort out the problems. The XHTML2 WG will need to change back to the original namespace they were using when they were chartered back in March 2007. Of course, if the W3C has two groups developing XHTML, surely someone should be asking the question: "Why has the W3C got two groups developing XHTML?". But I think someone's working on that issue. -- Dean Edridge
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 12:52:31 UTC