[Bug 6298] Provide a parser override


Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |dean@dean.org.nz

--- Comment #6 from Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz>  2009-01-03 15:45:10 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> >  The term is pretty widely used on the Web.
> hmm not widely used on the Web, only a few occurences.

It *is* widely used on the web, I know this because I have had Google alerts
for XHTML5 for the last 3 1/2 years. XHTML5 has also been mentioned in books,
magazines and on the BBC's web site. 

> I would go through the
> Working Group and discuss that with Sam Ruby (new chair starting in January)
> and others. Just to make it a group decision. It Seems that Sam is interested
> by fixing the issues of communications with XHTML 2 WG.

This has already been sorted out Karl [1]

The way to solve the problem for good is to throw away the rejected XHTML 2
proposal. It's not implementable, was rejected by the browser vendors 8 years
ago, it offers no benefits over XHTML1 or XHTML5 and it's very existence
continues to hold back the progress of the web. And despite what some people
might say, it will not lead to the successful implementation or deployment of

You can't use "HTML5+XML" even in the short term as both HTML5 and XHTML5 can
use "XML syntax" (some XML syntax is valid in text/html). This will just
confuse people as it's not the syntax that distinguishes HTML5 from XHTML5 [2]
You'll have to use "HTML5/XHTML" while we wait for the issue to be "officially"
resolved. This label would be OK for the short term as the spec makes it clear
that XHTML can not be used as text/html but there is no such wording for "XML
syntax" or "HTML5+XML" so that will have to be changed.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0386.html
[2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#html-vs-xhtml

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Saturday, 3 January 2009 15:45:22 UTC