Re: Media types for XHTML 1.x document

Hi Philippe

Sorry, I didn't mean to get in to a big discussion about this before 
hearing back from Steven, but it seems to have worked out that way... oh 

It seems I misread what you wrote earlier, I see now that your arguments 
appear to be based on the belief that the XHTML2 WG has been following 
the W3C process and working within their charter. I do not believe that 
they have stayed within their charter, or followed the W3C process, I 
pointed this out in my original emails [1][2], it seems you may not have 
had time to read those yet. Anyway, obviously it's best to wait until I 
hear back from Steven before going into it too much more. But as there's 
some confusion about what exactly the complaint is about and why I 
believe I have a valid point, I'll clarify what my objections are.

Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> [adding back www-archive]

Thanks, that's what I asked for - Dean Edridge wrote:
> Can you please read the reasons I have given for my objections and if 
> you feel the need to respond to me please cc the archive as when I 
> have dealt with these sorts of issues privately in the past I have 
> been ignored.

Dean Edridge wrote:
>> I strongly disagree, they *are* obligated to update the document as I
>> requested.
> They are NOT obligated. 

I think you'll find that the process rules/guides you're referring to 
here are for documents that working groups are authorised to produce, 
and the XHTML2 WG are certainly not authorised to produce a general "how 
to guide" for versions of XHTML that other working groups are 
developing, only for the versions of XHTML that they are 
maintaining/developing, which is only XHTML1.x, so IMO that above 
comment isn't relevant/valid.

I'll add these relevant comments (plus some extra words and edits) that 
I sent you earlier but didn't get archived.
Dean Edridge wrote:
> The XHTML2 WG is saying that text/html is a valid XHTML mime type, 
> which isn't really correct, but has already been "OKed" by earlier W3C 
> documents (well, not really, but... anyway) for XHTML1.x, but at the 
> same time, the HTML WG is saying that it is not a valid XHTML mime 
> type, and that text/html web pages can only be HTML. So, regardless of 
> syntax, the mime type is authoritive and rules over doctype etc, then 
> from there, it's a matter of whether the web page validates against 
> that mime type. So the XHTML2 WG  is saying that the difference 
> between HTML and XHTML is purely syntactic, but the HTML WG defines it 
> based on how the web works, and that's on mime. So the HTML WG, 
> browser vendors and other industry experts define the difference 
> between HTML and XHTML as being the mime type, file ext, or how the 
> document is processed (ie. an HTML or XML parser). Having these 
> differences of opinion between two groups or between two specs is not 
> necessarily a big problem (and it's unavoidable anyway, for historical 
> reasons) as long as the public know the note doesn't apply to all 
> versions of XHTML. So, this isn't a major problem if every one knows 
> that the "mime type note" only applies to XHTML1.x, but if it is seen 
> as a general note published and endorsed by the W3C on how to use 
> XHTML (which it is) then *this is a big problem* . But as I said 
> earlier, the confusion can be eliminated by simply adding a new title 
> and URL to the note. There are lots of other things I disagree with in 
> the note but I'm willing to let them be as it doesn't matter too much 
> as long as people know the note only applies to XHTML1.x and not other 
> versions of XHTML such as the XHTML variant of the HTML5 spec etc. 

Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> The Group is expected to address issues but [1]
> doesn't say anything about formally addressing them in order to publish.
> In other words, neither you or I have the authority to prevent a Working
> Group from publishing the Note if they follow the W3C Process and also
> follow their charters.

Well, as I said in my first email(s) [1][2], the XHTML2 WG have 
deliberately gone outside their charter and they have not followed the 
W3C process. However hard they try to convince people that they are the 
"XHTML WG" and control all things XHTML, they are *not* the "XHTML WG" 
and are not chartered to be in charge of *all* things XHTML, this is a 
case of wishful thinking, and persistent persuasion of W3C staff and the 
public by the XHTML2 WG in the hope that, amongst other things, they can 
prevent the XHTML variant of HTML5 (XHTML5) from being developed. These 
deliberate attempts to mislead people have not gone unnoticed and have 
been objected to before by myself and many in the HTML WG and in the 
community. The XHTML2 WG know very well that the *HTML WG are developing 
both HTML and XHTML* as I have pointed this out to Steven Pemberton, 
Shane McCarron, Mark Birbeck and the XHTML2 WG on several occasions. 
It's clear to me and others that the XHTML2 WG do not have sole 
authority over XHTML, this is indicated by the fact that the name of 
their group was changed from "XHTML WG" to "XHTML2 WG" as it is the 
XHTML2 proposal that is their primary focus, and as a secondary task 
they are maintaining the legacy XHTML 1.x specs.

So given what I have said above, I think that any discussions about RFCs 
and Charters are a different matter to deal with on another day as my 
comments apply to the XHTML2 WG's charter as it is today. I've already 
expressed to Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly, Steven Pemberton and many 
others what IMO the W3C needs to do to ensure XHTML reaches it's full 
potential, so I think it's best to leave those issues for a separate 

Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> Again, whether you or I have objections over the document doesn't enter
> into considerations here.

Well obviously I disagree with that.

I believe my request to make the note only applicable to XHTML1.x and 
have this indicated through a new title and new URL is a very reasonable 
request that allows the two groups to continue on their separate 
specifications. I look forward to hearing back from Roland or Steven 
from the XHTML2 WG and moving forward from there.


Dean Edridge

Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 13:24:24 UTC