- 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>
-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