Re: Support for XHTML5

 I'm guessing we should offer each other the courtesy of assuming neither
labors under common misconceptions, including one that real-world practice
conforms to standards. Many on the list will be familiar with the issues
and TL;DR will overwhelm us if they need to be rehashed too many times.

 OK, great... no SH-specific requirement as to media type.  I am all for
UTF-8 as a SHOULD (though not a MUST).

 I do think we need to recognize that SH will come across the wire as
'application/xhtml+xml' and that people like me will have it on our
filesystems as "*.xhtml" (or at least that's what I do). The standard
should be written so as not to preclude that. And yes, dropping 'text/html'
requirement goes a long way towards that goal.

 Which is to say, sure, we describe at the level of the DOM but recognize
that specific serializations/concrete syntaxes are important.

 But there's more. I'm particularly interested that any test suite include
xhtml versions.

 [And one note, I really am speaking about XHTML as defined in the 5.1 HTML
spec. XHTML 1.1 no more current than HTML 4. XHTML 2.0? Of course, dead,
dead, dead. And good riddance. Back to regular text...]

 Likewise, examples in documentation can use both concrete syntaxes. I am
happy to work on xhtml versions.

 And then more broadly, that the goals of the group as now being
articulated recognize that xhtml has an ongoing role.

 -Sebastian