(In reply to comment #0
#reposting to public-html:

Please allow the title of the spec currently known as "HTML5" to be changed to
an accurate title. I've made formal objections to the current title since 2007,
I've made proposals to fix the title, I've complained many times about this to
many different people associated with the WHATWG and the W3C. People have
always tried to stop the title from being changed, and unfortunately they have
been successful.

The spec never was HTML5
The spec never was going to be HTML5
The spec is not HTML5 now
The spec never will be HTML5 in the future
HTML5 is just part of the spec.
And more importantly, there can not ever be a spec called "HTML5" as HTML5 can
never be separated from XHTML5 and DOM5 so you have to either list all the
technologies in the title or have a title that is not in the spec, such as
"WEB5", "WEBAPPS5" or similar. At the moment, the W3C and WHATWG are continuing
to publish a spec that has three completely different meanings for the same
acronym (HTML5) I don't know how these standards bodies can think this is not a
problem. There are all sorts of confusion in the spec that cannot be cleared up
until the title is fixed. I haven't bothered to fix these issues as I know it's
a lost cause while we have three HTML5s associated with the same document.

And when I say "Please allow" I mean DON'T let certain people (I'll name names
if I really have to) block this problem from being fixed as this is what has
always happened in the past.

Now, if the W3C is happy to have this mess sorted out, I'd be happy to make a
proposal and submit it to the group within the next week. But I wont be doing
that until I know that it's going to be considered seriously as the last time I
did this, a certain person in a position of authority blocked my proposal from
being discussed and/or adopted by the HTML WG so I'm not wanting to have my
time wasted again by people that are prepared to corrupt the process of the
HTML WG.

And I'm aware why some people have tried to stop the title from being changed
before, so keep that in mind if you reply as I don't want my time or the groups
time wasted by people with hidden agendas deceiving the group.

Thanks
Dean

The HTML WG has formally decided to publish this specification under the name "HTML5". See <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results#xname>.

(In reply to comment #2)
> The HTML WG has formally decided to publish this specification under the name
> "HTML5". See <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results#xname>.
> 

Why are you telling me this? It is irrelevant, I am well aware of that survey, I voted against the "HTML5" title and if others knew that the spec wasn't "HTML5" they would have too. Just because there has been a survey does not mean that the problem is solved, quite the opposite. The survey question was: "Shall the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"?" The specification never has been the next-generation HTML specification, HTML5 is just a small part of it. Also, survey results are not binding.

Several people including Sam Ruby, Roy Fielding and myself have tried to get the title changed, however, each time we have been ignored (sometimes mocked or laughed at by certain people) and the proposals have been blocked by representatives of browser vendors and the WHATWG. 

I have explained in detail why the problem needs to be resolved. No technical report should contain two technologies with the same name, and especially when that name is also being used for the name of the spec. It would be irresponsible for the HTML WG to continue to publish this spec when they know of these errors.

The title needs to be changed, and at the same time solve the problem with two HTML5s within the spec, and this needs to be done within the group, not by Ian himself. It's a not a hard thing to do, wouldn't take long, just need the HTML WG to accept there's a problem and to make sure people don't interfere and block the change, as unfortunately, this has happened in the past, this is why we still have a spec with errors and contradictions.

Due to a conflict of interest, and/or interference in the past, the following people will need to step aside and let the rest of the HTML WG resolve this issue.

Ian Hickson, Google, Inc.
Maciej Stachowiak, Apple, Inc.
David Hyatt, Apple, Inc.



I filed a bug report for this issue due to the fact that I've been ignored in the past. I've left the bug as "needsinfo" (not sure what else to use). I'd be happy to discuss this issue later in the week on public-html once my HTML WG membership is renewed.

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > The HTML WG has formally decided to publish this specification under the name
> > "HTML5". See <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results#xname>.
> > 
> 
> Why are you telling me this? It is irrelevant, I am well aware of that survey,
> I voted against the "HTML5" title and if others knew that the spec wasn't
> "HTML5" they would have too. Just because there has been a survey does not mean
> that the problem is solved, quite the opposite. The survey question was: "Shall
> the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"?" The
> specification never has been the next-generation HTML specification, HTML5 is
> just a small part of it. Also, survey results are not binding.

Based on that survey and further discussion, we had a Working Group Decision to name the speification HTML5. Per the W3C Process, decisions may only be reopened if there is new information: <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen>

Do you have new information to provide that was not available at the time of the original Working Group Decision to publish a Working Draft named HTML5?


> Due to a conflict of interest, and/or interference in the past, the following
> people will need to step aside and let the rest of the HTML WG resolve this
> issue.
> 
> Ian Hickson, Google, Inc.
> Maciej Stachowiak, Apple, Inc.
> David Hyatt, Apple, Inc.

Any individual is free to have an opinion on the matter. If the issue is re-raised, it is extremely unlikely that the Chairs will forbid any particular individual to speak their mind, unless they cannot keep their communications professional.

> I filed a bug report for this issue due to the fact that I've been ignored in
> the past. I've left the bug as "needsinfo" (not sure what else to use). I'd be
> happy to discuss this issue later in the week on public-html once my HTML WG
> membership is renewed.

If you'd like, I can ask the other two HTML WG co-chairs whether they agree that the name of the spec is a settled issue and cannot be reopened without new information.

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > The HTML WG has formally decided to publish this specification under the name
> > > "HTML5". See <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results#xname>.
> > > 
> > 
> > Why are you telling me this? It is irrelevant, I am well aware of that survey,
> > I voted against the "HTML5" title and if others knew that the spec wasn't
> > "HTML5" they would have too. Just because there has been a survey does not mean
> > that the problem is solved, quite the opposite. The survey question was: "Shall
> > the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"?" The
> > specification never has been the next-generation HTML specification, HTML5 is
> > just a small part of it. Also, survey results are not binding.
> 
> Based on that survey and further discussion, we had a Working Group Decision to
> name the speification HTML5. Per the W3C Process, decisions may only be
> reopened if there is new information:
> <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen>
> 
> Do you have new information to provide that was not available at the time of
> the original Working Group Decision to publish a Working Draft named HTML5?

You know very well that I do, I mentioned it along with a dozen other reasons back in January 2008, I'm still waiting to hear back from the HTML WG or the editor on the issue.

> 
> 
> > Due to a conflict of interest, and/or interference in the past, the following
> > people will need to step aside and let the rest of the HTML WG resolve this
> > issue.
> > 
> > Ian Hickson, Google, Inc.
> > Maciej Stachowiak, Apple, Inc.
> > David Hyatt, Apple, Inc.
> 
> Any individual is free to have an opinion on the matter. If the issue is
> re-raised, it is extremely unlikely that the Chairs will forbid any particular
> individual to speak their mind, unless they cannot keep their communications
> professional.

You mean like how "some people" have done everything they can to make sure the issue doesn't get resolved Maciej? Yes I understand. Some people stand to benefit from it not being fixed Maciej, you know...


> 
> > I filed a bug report for this issue due to the fact that I've been ignored in
> > the past. I've left the bug as "needsinfo" (not sure what else to use). I'd be
> > happy to discuss this issue later in the week on public-html once my HTML WG
> > membership is renewed.
> 
> If you'd like, I can ask the other two HTML WG co-chairs whether they agree
> that the name of the spec is a settled issue and cannot be reopened without new
> information.
> 

I'll take it up with either the other two chairs (Sam or Paul), or the group on public-html sometime over the next seven days.
Thanks for your time.

Dean

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > (In reply to comment #3)
> > 
> > Based on that survey and further discussion, we had a Working Group Decision to
> > name the speification HTML5. Per the W3C Process, decisions may only be
> > reopened if there is new information:
> > <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen>
> > 
> > Do you have new information to provide that was not available at the time of
> > the original Working Group Decision to publish a Working Draft named HTML5?
> 
> You know very well that I do, I mentioned it along with a dozen other reasons
> back in January 2008, I'm still waiting to hear back from the HTML WG or the
> editor on the issue.

Could you please cite here the new information you have provided? You can either state the new information inline, or provide a link to any previous mentions. Note that it would have to be information that was not available at the time of the original decision.

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > 
> > > Based on that survey and further discussion, we had a Working Group Decision to
> > > name the speification HTML5. Per the W3C Process, decisions may only be
> > > reopened if there is new information:
> > > <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen>
> > > 
> > > Do you have new information to provide that was not available at the time of
> > > the original Working Group Decision to publish a Working Draft named HTML5?
> > 
> > You know very well that I do, I mentioned it along with a dozen other reasons
> > back in January 2008, I'm still waiting to hear back from the HTML WG or the
> > editor on the issue.
> 
> Could you please cite here the new information you have provided? You can
> either state the new information inline, or provide a link to any previous
> mentions.

Here's my original request to fix the problem that the WHATWG created. Unfortunately, due to certain people's interference, the HTML WG wasn't able to have a discussion and come up with a better title back in Jan 2008
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jan/0120.html

> Note that it would have to be information that was not available at
> the time of the original decision.

Whether there's new information or not, the W3C can not continue to publish a specification that they know has triple meanings to words and other contradictions. This is a technical error, it is not just a cosmetic issue and I don't think that we should just leave it broken so corporations like Apple inc, can benefit from it being wrong.

There is a problem with the spec and it needs to be fixed, and you know it. Pretending that the problem wasn't there in 2007 wont make the problem disappear.

Some of this information was available in 2007, but the information was withheld from the HTML WG.

The HTML WG were only told that the spec was a replacement for HTML4, so obviously they thought it would be OK to call it HTML5. However, the HTML WG now knows that the spec is the next version of HTML, XHTML and the DOM and other technologies. The HTML WG also now knows that there are two other technologies within the spec called HTML5, this means we have three technologies all called HTML5. The spec contains the latest version of XHTML called XHTML5, so to have a language called XHTML5 inside a spec called HTML5 is silly. Now that the group are aware of these things, it makes sense that the HTML WG have a discussion and come up with a suitable title.

I think that's enough reasons to get the problem fixed.

(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > (In reply to comment #5)
> > > (In reply to comment #4)
> > > > (In reply to comment #3)
> > > > 
> > > > Based on that survey and further discussion, we had a Working Group Decision to
> > > > name the speification HTML5. Per the W3C Process, decisions may only be
> > > > reopened if there is new information:
> > > > <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGChairReopen>
> > > > 
> > > > Do you have new information to provide that was not available at the time of
> > > > the original Working Group Decision to publish a Working Draft named HTML5?
> > > 
> > > You know very well that I do, I mentioned it along with a dozen other reasons
> > > back in January 2008, I'm still waiting to hear back from the HTML WG or the
> > > editor on the issue.
> > 
> > Could you please cite here the new information you have provided? You can
> > either state the new information inline, or provide a link to any previous
> > mentions.
> 
> Here's my original request to fix the problem that the WHATWG created.
> Unfortunately, due to certain people's interference, the HTML WG wasn't able to
> have a discussion and come up with a better title back in Jan 2008
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jan/0120.html
> 
> > Note that it would have to be information that was not available at
> > the time of the original decision.
> 
> Whether there's new information or not, the W3C can not continue to publish a
> specification that they know has triple meanings to words and other
> contradictions. This is a technical error, it is not just a cosmetic issue and
> I don't think that we should just leave it broken so corporations like Apple
> inc, can benefit from it being wrong.
> 
> There is a problem with the spec and it needs to be fixed, and you know it.
> Pretending that the problem wasn't there in 2007 wont make the problem
> disappear.
> 
> Some of this information was available in 2007, but the information was
> withheld from the HTML WG.
> 
> The HTML WG were only told that the spec was a replacement for HTML4, so
> obviously they thought it would be OK to call it HTML5. However, the HTML WG
> now knows that the spec is the next version of HTML, XHTML and the DOM and
> other technologies. The HTML WG also now knows that there are two other
> technologies within the spec called HTML5, this means we have three
> technologies all called HTML5. The spec contains the latest version of XHTML
> called XHTML5, so to have a language called XHTML5 inside a spec called HTML5
> is silly. Now that the group are aware of these things, it makes sense that the
> HTML WG have a discussion and come up with a suitable title.
> 
> I think that's enough reasons to get the problem fixed.
> 

Survey that led to the decision: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/
Results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results

Note that the survey results include multiple mentions of XHTML, and a suggestion from you personally to name the spec (x)html5.

The WG was also aware at the time that the proposed draft included DOM APIs.

1) The survey results include mention of "JavaScript". 

2) The abstract of the proposed draft said at the time, "This specification introduces features to HTML and the DOM that ease the authoring of Web-based applications." The status section said: "This specification is intended to replace (be the new version of) what was previously the HTML4, XHTML 1.x, and DOM2 HTML specifications." It would be impossible for anyone who even briefly looked at the draft to miss these notes. (Reference: http://web.archive.org/web/20070122104622/http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ )

3) Emails on the list prior to the survey mentioned the DOM:

http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=DOM&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=Apr&period_year=2007&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-html&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date

http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=DOM&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=May&period_year=2007&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-html&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date

It seems pretty clear to me that all the information you cite above was known at the time of the survey and was in no way withheld. The Working Group simply disagreed with you, and made its decision.

> > 
> > I think that's enough reasons to get the problem fixed.
> > 
> 
> Survey that led to the decision: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/
> Results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/htmlbg/results
> 
> Note that the survey results include multiple mentions of XHTML, and a
> suggestion from you personally to name the spec (x)html5.
> 
> The WG was also aware at the time that the proposed draft included DOM APIs.
> 
> 1) The survey results include mention of "JavaScript". 
> 
> 2) The abstract of the proposed draft said at the time, "This specification
> introduces features to HTML and the DOM that ease the authoring of Web-based
> applications." The status section said: "This specification is intended to
> replace (be the new version of) what was previously the HTML4, XHTML 1.x, and
> DOM2 HTML specifications." It would be impossible for anyone who even briefly
> looked at the draft to miss these notes. (Reference:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070122104622/http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
> )
> 
> 3) Emails on the list prior to the survey mentioned the DOM:

Stop playing games, you know very well that the W3C wanted the spec to just be HTML5 and nothing else, therefore the HTML WG were not openly told about XHTML5, DOM5 etc, the W3C didn't accept these technologies being in the same spec until later. And as I've said before, the survey was: "Shall
the W3C's next-generation HTML specification be named "HTML 5"?". Well, no one is disputing that, the W3C's next-generation of HTML has been named "HTML 5", the issue is "what can the spec be called?" as the spec is not the "W3C's next-generation HTML specification", it includes HTML5, XHTML5, DOM5 etc.

I have been pleading with the W3C to allow a XHTML language from the spec to replace XHTML2 and become the new and only version of XHTML. Don't try and pretend that XHTML5 was always accepted by the W3C and openly discussed by the HTML WG. Don't try and rewrite history, I know how things have happened.

> 
> http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=DOM&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=Apr&period_year=2007&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-html&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=DOM&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=May&period_year=2007&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-html&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date
> 
> It seems pretty clear to me that all the information you cite above was known
> at the time of the survey and was in no way withheld. The Working Group simply
> disagreed with you, and made its decision.

You are not being honest at all Maciej Stachowiak, stop playing games. You know very well that it was a mistake. The group were not told until 2009 that the spec was both HTML and XHTML. I know more about this issue than almost anyone else, I've been pleading with the W3C to fix the issue, don't try and tell me things are not this way, don't insult me. There was no way that the group could come up with a title for the spec when the group was not told what the spec included. There was no way that the title issue could have been resolved at the time when the W3C said they had another group developing all the XHTML specs with a spec and group name called "XHTML2".

You know all of this very well, DO NOT waste anymore of my time or the groups time. Stop being deceitful, this has to stop. If you are not willing to fix this problem, then leave it for the other chairs to fix. Do not interfere and prevent the problem from being fixed please.

I politely requested that you not be involved with this issue due to the conflict with interest. Why have you gone against that and interferred with this again? You should have left this for the other chairs to deal with.

Even if what you have said above was true, it would still be irrelevant. There is a problem with the spec and it must be fixed. The fact that we may have had a survey, or ten surveys does not mean there isn't a problem that needs to be fixed Mr Stachowiak.

You and Ian created this problem by calling the spec HTML5 when you knew it wasn't HTML5, that was either stupid or deceitful. It wouldn't be called HTML5 now if you hadn't called it HTML5 before bringing it too the W3C. You and Ian have continued to prevent this problem from being fixed (which may have been unintentional in Ian's case), you and Ian have refused to accept that there is a problem no matter how many times people point it out. In 2009, someone pointed out there was a problem, YOU did everything you could to make sure the problem didn't get resolved, you made such a fuss about it your comments even made it on to the "LastWeekinHTML5" Blog. This is why I politely asked that you not have anything to do with this issue from now on. You and Ian stand to gain from this problem not being fixed which is why you have prevented the problem from being fixed. As I have said, there is a conflict of interest! Do not interfere anymore! I have spent three years trying to fix this issue. I will not stop now just because You, Ian, the WHATWG, Apple inc, Google etc stand to gain from this problem not being fixed. Understand?!

This is a technical problem that needs to be fixed. Stop playing games. Either you help fix the problem, or you leave it for myself and the other chairs to fix. I will not have my time wasted and the web damaged just because you or your company wants to benefit from a mistake that the WHATWG originally created.

Thank You
Dean Edridge

(In reply to comment #9)
> Stop playing games, you know very well that the W3C wanted the spec to just be
> HTML5 and nothing else

You know very well that's not true. Please don't spread FUD.

Thanks.

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > Stop playing games, you know very well that the W3C wanted the spec to just be
> > HTML5 and nothing else
> 
> You know very well that's not true. Please don't spread FUD.
> 
> Thanks.

I know that for a fact, it's no secret. It is in the public record. Go back and check the records for the XHTML2 WG and TAG teleconference notes. I have sent private emails to Steven Pemberton, and also to Sir Tim Berners Lee pleading with them to allow a XHTML variant of the spec to be developed. I mentioned this in my last comment, but once again you have decided to ignore the facts and be a trouble maker.

Everything I have said in this, and the "sub-title" bug-report, is 100% true, including the suggestion that cetain people have been actively preventing this problem from being fixed.

Right from the start you have made it abundantly clear that you are only interested in causing trouble. I have no idea who you are, or what it is you think I've done against you, but you certainly have an attitude problem and are hell bent on being a nuisance. I posted a bug report, I detailed what had happened in the past, and suggested that Ian had made an error in judgement. This needed to be said as the chairs would need to know the history and importance of the matter so they could decide whether to ask Ian to change it or not. I specifically said that I thought Ian had made his change "in good faith", I did not attack him. You came long and attacked me, falsely accusing me of attacking him, you went on to accuse me of other things. You are a trouble maker, go away and cause trouble somewhere else please. I am trying my best to fix a problem that other people have created, and other people have prevented from being solved. You are just making things ten times worse.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, you don't know the history of this issue, you haven't bothered to listen to the facts and find out about the history of this issue. You obviously aren't interested in presenting any intelligent or accurate information in an effort to help solve the problem, so I strongly suggest that you just stay away from the matter please. I will definately speak to Sam Ruby and Paul about the matter mid week and take it from there. There is no need for Maciej or Ian to have anything to do with the title or sub-title matter due to the conflict of interest and the fact that the rest of the group can figure out how to do about the problem.

Also, when communicating with people it's courtesy to tell people your name, it's very rude to just hide behind a fake email address like you've been doing, I have no idea who I'm talking to.

Thank You

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > Stop playing games, you know very well that the W3C wanted the spec to just be
> > HTML5 and nothing else
> 
> You know very well that's not true. Please don't spread FUD.
> 
> Thanks.

I know that for a fact, it's no secret. It is in the public record. Go back and check the records for the XHTML2 WG and TAG teleconference notes. I have sent private emails to Steven Pemberton, and also to Sir Tim Berners Lee pleading with them to allow a XHTML variant of the spec to be developed. I mentioned this in my last comment, but once again you have decided to ignore the facts and be a trouble maker.

Everything I have said in this, and the "sub-title" bug-report, is 100% true, including the suggestion that cetain people have been actively preventing this problem from being fixed.

Right from the start you have made it abundantly clear that you are only interested in causing trouble. I have no idea who you are, or what it is you think I've done against you, but you certainly have an attitude problem and are hell bent on being a nuisance. I posted a bug report, I detailed what had happened in the past, and suggested that Ian had made an error in judgement. This needed to be said as the chairs would need to know the history and importance of the matter so they could decide whether to ask Ian to change it or not. I specifically said that I thought Ian had made his change "in good faith", I did not attack him. You came long and attacked me, falsely accusing me of attacking him, you went on to accuse me of other things. You are a trouble maker, go away and cause trouble somewhere else please. I am trying my best to fix a problem that other people have created, and other people have prevented from being solved. You are just making things ten times worse.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, you don't know the history of this issue, you haven't bothered to listen to the facts and find out about the history of this issue. You obviously aren't interested in presenting any intelligent or accurate information in an effort to help solve the problem, so I strongly suggest that you just stay away from the matter please. I will definately speak to Sam Ruby and Paul about the matter mid week and take it from there. There is no need for Maciej or Ian to have anything to do with the title or sub-title matter due to the conflict of interest and the fact that the rest of the group can figure out how to do about the problem.

Also, when communicating with people it's courtesy to tell people your name, it's very rude to just hide behind a fake email address like you've been doing, I have no idea who I'm talking to.

Thank You

Section 1.6 says this:

"This specification defines version 5 of the HTML syntax, known as 'HTML5'."
and
"This specification defines version 5 of the XHTML syntax, known as 'XHTML5'."

I do think that the title "HTML5" is a bit misleading and degrades "XHTML5" to a second or third class syntax. But XHTML likely will be dead anyway if XHTML5 can not be delivered with MIME-type text/html (because of an incompatibility with a user agent spread by a certain company since many years).

In any case the subtitle currently is "A vocabulary and associated APIs for HTML and XHTML".

(In reply to comment #13)
> Section 1.6 says this:
> 
> "This specification defines version 5 of the HTML syntax, known as 'HTML5'."
> and
> "This specification defines version 5 of the XHTML syntax, known as 'XHTML5'."
> 
> I do think that the title "HTML5" is a bit misleading and degrades "XHTML5" to
> a second or third class syntax. But XHTML likely will be dead anyway...


A specification needs to make sense, regardless of whether or not xhtml "takes off", regardless of whether 10, 10 000, or 10 000 000 web pages use xhtml5. The spec is supposed to be a technical report, it should not contradict it self.

This could have been fixed in 2007, or 2008, but several people (at least 5 individuals) have interfered with the process and prevented it from being fixed.


> if XHTML5
> can not be delivered with MIME-type text/html (because of an incompatibility
> with a user agent spread by a certain company since many years).

No/yes, but there is is no such thing as xhtml5 served as text/html as xhtml5 is not a syntax. A text/html web page is html, NOT xhtml, regardless of syntax. There is no such thing as a xhtml document with a .html file extension. People can use a "xml-compatible" syntax in their html5 web pages without having to bother with xhtml5 and XML parsers, some call this a 'polyglot' syntax. This, also, needs to be clarified within the spec.

xhtml5 is not a syntax, or serialization, it is a language, and as a language, it is defined as being a XML document. Calling the spec html5 has caused a lot of confusion over this issue; most people don't know what the difference is between html5 and xhtml5.

---

The W3C can not continue to publish a spec called "html5" which contains two technologies called html5. The W3C have known about this problem since at least March 2007.

The only way to fix this issue is to, at the very least, change the title of the spec. There would also need to be some renaming/'reshuffling', within the spec in order to make things logical and remove the contradictions and confusion.

EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: See comment 8.