Change XHTML 2.0 namespace to http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml

Jukka K. Korpela schreef:
>>While it is incompatible, it is not *arbitrarily* incompatible, if you
>>see what I mean.  For example, we could have easily gotten rid of the
>>"a" and "img" elements, but we have not because people like and use
>>them.
> 
> Sorry, but that sounds ridiculous. If you have decided to make a change
> that prevents _all_ current browsers from rendering XHTML 2 documents, you
> are paying quite a price

Yeah...

I propose that you make XHTML 2.0 work in the 
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace.

Be it as the new XHTML 2.0 namespace, or an optional secondary possible 
namespace (which I don’t really like but it is better than what we have 
now). I would certainly like that.

Many design choices of XHTML 2.0 were based on backwards compatibility, 
which I think is nice and worked out well, and I think you should act on 
that and just make the damn thing actually *backwards compatible*, 
because no matter how well the intentions are, when the namespace is 
different, it is pointless.

This will also aid early adoption.

The spec as it currently is introduces many new things, but I think that 
XHTML 2.0 documents can be authored so that they are compatible with 
XHTML 1.0 user agents. I like that very much, but only when there’s a 
point to it.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!

Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 10:08:43 UTC