W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > July 2008

Re: changes in HTML5 draft regarding XHTML1

From: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:43:50 +0100
To: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, public-xhtml2@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDB8EB2D7.F57815B5-ON80257497.002F8A8E-80257497.002FF71F@uk.ibm.com>
Greetings Michael, we have had a brief discussion and someone has taken a 
action to draft such wording for our review before responding to your 
request. That person is presently on holiday and due back next Monday so 
there is a reasonable chance that we will get back to you to in time to 
meet your projected timetable.

Regards, Roland

"Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Roland Merrick/UK/IBM@IBMGB
public-html@w3.org, public-xhtml2@w3.org
31/07/2008 09:06
Re: changes in HTML5 draft regarding XHTML1

Hi Roland,

I'm writing to ask if the XHTML2 Working Group has had a chance
yet to discuss wording for the HTML5 draft to use in describing
the relationship between HTML5 and XHTML1.

I've started a discussion in the HTML WG about targeting the next
working draft of the HTML5 spec for early/mid-August[1]. If we do
end up deciding to publish the next HTML5 WD at that time, it
would be good to have, in that draft, wording about the HTML5 and
XHTML1 relationship that is acceptable to the XHTML2 WG.



Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>, 2008-06-20 12:37 +0100:

> Greetings Michael, your proposal that we start looking for some mutually 

> acceptable wording for the relationship between HTML5 and XHTML sounds 
> perfectly reasonable. I will put the subject on the agenda for our WG 
> telecon.
> Regards, Roland
> "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org> 
> 20/06/2008 12:14
> To
> Roland Merrick/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> cc
> public-html@w3.org, public-xhtml2@w3.org, public-xhtml2-request@w3.org
> Subject
> Re: changes in HTML5 draft regarding XHTML1
> Hi Roland,
> > @2008-06-19 10:31 +0100:
> > HTML Working Group members
> > You wrote [1] to the XHTML2 Working Group asking for a response 
> regarding 
> > specific changes made to parts of the HTML5 Editor's Draft [2].
> > 
> > We discussed your request at our Face to Face meeting and concluded: 
> "The 
> > [XHTML2] WG recognises that we are chartered to maintain and develop 
> > XHTML series, and the HTML5 specification should therefore not contain 

> > text that makes it appear differently". 
> > 
> > We request that the text be removed.
> > 
> > [1] 
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/
> Thanks for the response. Now that we've initiated some public
> discussion of this, I'd hope that we don't cut it short
> prematurely and can consider continuing that public discussion
> without venturing into formalities -- unless and until our
> respective groups decide those are really necessary.
> In that spirit, I'd like to ask if you could consider the
> following request:
> For a number of reasons, it seems like it would be beneficial to
> have some text in the HTML5 draft that describes the relationship
> of HTML5 to XHTML 1.x. I understand that the current text in the
> spec which attempts to do that is not acceptable to the XHTML2
> Working Group, so I'd like to ask if there is anything the XHTML2
> Working Group can suggest as an alternative for the draft to say
> about the relationship between HTML5 and XHTML 1.x.
> The rest of this message is an attempt to provide background on
> the above inquiry.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> First, I want to note for the record that the HTML5 draft has had
> -- since the time[1] when the HTML Working Group first agreed[2]
> to adopt it as "our specification text for review" -- a section[3]
> that attempts to describe the relationship of HTML5 to XHTML 1.x.
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html?rev=1.1
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results
> [3] 

> Relatively recently, it was communicated to me privately that some
> members of the XHTML2 Working Group had concerns about the wording
> of that particular section. So, editorial refinements were made to
> the text in the current HTML5 Editor's Draft, in an attempt to
> describe the relationship more precisely -- with the result being
> the text that can be found here:
>   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#relationship0
> Given that the HTML5 draft specification is a W3C working draft
> published in a space shared with the XHTML 1.x specifications, it
> seems that the community is likely to expect the HTML5 draft to
> provide a description of its relationship to the XHTML 1.x
> specifications. That's all that the "Relationship to XHTML 1.x"
> section in the current HTML5 Editor's Draft is attempting to do.
> That section is specifically not attempting to give any appearance
> that the XHTML2 Working Group is not chartered to maintain and
> develop the XHTML series, or, specifically updates to the XHTML
> 1.x specifications. (Until I saw mention of XHTML 1.2 in the
> minutes[4] for the XHTML2 Working Group virtual face-to-face
> meeting, I at least was not at all aware of plans for the group to
> develop XHTML 1.2.)
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-xhtml-minutes#item01
> Finally, I want to note that the HTML5 specification is
> constrained by some particular requirements in the charter[5] for
> the HTML Working Group.
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html
> Specifically, the HTML5 draft is constrained by the following
> parts of the HTML Working Group charter:
> The mission statement in the charter reads in full:
>   The mission of the HTML Working Group, part of the HTML
>   Activity, is to continue the evolution of HTML (including
>   classic HTML and XML syntaxes).
> And the Scope section of the charter says:
>   This group will maintain and produce incremental revisions to
>   the HTML specification. Both XML and 'classic HTML' syntaxes
>   will be produced."
> In addition, the Deliverables section of the charter says that the
> following is among the requirements for the spec the group is
> chartered do deliver:
>   An extensible, serialized form of such a language, using XML.
> So the HTML5 draft, in its current form, does aim to meet those
> requirements in the charter -- and the "Relationship to XHTML 1.x"
> section in the HTML5 editor's draft is essentially an attempt to
> describe how that aspect of HTML5 relates to XHTML 1.x
> That's it. I hope that above provides some insight on the
> background for my inquiry about whether you think the XHTML2
> Working Group could consider suggesting alternative language for
> the HTML5 draft to use for describing the relationship between
> HTML5 and XHTML 1.x.
> Regards,
>   --Mike

Michael(tm) Smith

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 08:44:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:02 UTC