W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2009

Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:44:44 +0100
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uph8suwwidj3kv@zcorpandell.linkoping.osa>
-public-html
+www-archive

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:18:39 +0100, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 03:35 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote:
> [...]
>> In conclusion: XHTML5 does not have a new conflict with XHTML2 even if
>> both use the same namespace. The conflict, insofar as there is one that
>> matters, already exists between XHTML1 and XHTML2, and exists  
>> irrespective
>> of XHTML5. I believe this issue to therefore be out of scope for the  
>> HTML5
>> specification, and do not propose to do anything about it (except for
>> changing the "relationship to XHTML2" section if they do indeed publish  
>> a
>> version of XHTML2 that reuses the same namespace).
>
> It seems they did publish such a draft:
>
> "Change XHTML 2.0 namespace to http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
>  -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml2-20060726/

That's from "Issues". The normative text is:

   The start tag of the root element of the document must explicitly
   contain an xmlns declaration for the XHTML 2.0 namespace [XMLNS]. The
   namespace URI for XHTML 2.0 is defined to be
   http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2/.


> I'm told it was by popular demand, so perhaps lots of demand
> in the other direction would get it changed.
>
> Myself, I'm content with the "ignore it and see if it
> goes away" approach.
>



-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 16:53:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:34 UTC