- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:12:57 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6298 --- Comment #8 from Dean Edridge <dean@dean.org.nz> 2009-01-14 13:12:56 --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > 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 should have backed up what I said. :) > > http://www.ask.com/web?q=xhtml5 Showing 1-10 of 12,700 > http://www.ask.com/web?q=xhtml1 Showing 1-10 of 533,000 And what does this prove? > > I'm following also the discussions on different alerts ;) > > > The proposal of Mike is reasonable Karl, I have just explained that using "XML" instead of "XHTML" is problematic. Only "XHTML" can distinguish between HTML5 and XHTML5 as it is possible to use XML syntax in HTML5 text/html web pages. I'm sure Mike's just trying to be nice and keep the peace, but it is not a good solution. > and there are still a few issues to solve > in terms of community and agreements. So what? We can't let silly politics hold back the progress of the web and the validation of XHTML web sites Karl. > See http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/12/15/Co-Chair-HTML-WG and the comments. > Yeah, I've already seen that, so what? Sam's heading in the wrong direction and this has been pointed out on his blog and on www-html. > (btw I have no preferences over a term. I just pointed out that there are still > two voices.) > <sigh> -- 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 Wednesday, 14 January 2009 13:13:07 UTC