ISSUE-60: Reuse of 1999 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong

html5-xhtml-namespace

Reuse of 1999 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong

State:
CLOSED
Product:
HTML 5 spec
Raised by:
Shawn Medero
Opened on:
2008-10-24
Description:
HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [namespaces ]
Related Actions Items:
Related emails:
  1. minutes for 2009-09-03 telcon (from mike@w3.org on 2009-09-05)
  2. Agenda for HTML WG telcon 2009-08-20 - Accessibility TF, HTML5 Test Suite, etc (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-09-01)
  3. {minutes} HTML WG telcon 2009-08-27 (from annevk@opera.com on 2009-08-27)
  4. {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-08-27 *PLEASE-READ* (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-08-26)
  5. ISSUE-60: html5-xhtml-namespace - suggest closing on 2009-09-03 (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-08-20)
  6. change policy for HTML namespace (ISSUE-60 html5-xhtml-namespace) (from connolly@w3.org on 2009-08-13)
  7. minutes HTML weekly 9 July for review (from connolly@w3.org on 2009-07-09)
  8. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-06-22)
  9. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-06-15)
  10. {cancelled} HTML WG telecon 2009-06-11 (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-06-10)
  11. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-06-01)
  12. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-05-11)
  13. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-04-27)
  14. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-04-21)
  15. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-04-15)
  16. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-04-06)
  17. Re: Input on the agenda (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-04-01)
  18. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-03-31)
  19. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-03-24)
  20. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-03-16)
  21. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-10)
  22. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-10)
  23. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-10)
  24. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from simonp@opera.com on 2009-03-09)
  25. Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-03-09)
  26. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2009-03-06)
  27. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-06)
  28. RE: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com on 2009-03-06)
  29. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-06)
  30. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from lhs@malform.no on 2009-03-06)
  31. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from john.kemp@nokia.com on 2009-03-05)
  32. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-05)
  33. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-05)
  34. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-03-05)
  35. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from timbl@w3.org on 2009-03-05)
  36. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from steven.pemberton@cwi.nl on 2009-03-05)
  37. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-05)
  38. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from steven.pemberton@cwi.nl on 2009-03-05)
  39. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-05)
  40. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-03-05)
  41. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-05)
  42. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-05)
  43. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-05)
  44. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-04)
  45. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-03-04)
  46. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-04)
  47. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-04)
  48. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-02)
  49. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from Smylers@stripey.com on 2009-03-02)
  50. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
  51. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from Smylers@stripey.com on 2009-03-01)
  52. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
  53. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
  54. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-03-01)
  55. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
  56. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
  57. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-01)
  58. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
  59. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-01)
  60. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
  61. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
  62. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from karl+w3c@la-grange.net on 2009-03-01)
  63. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from lhs@malform.no on 2009-03-01)
  64. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from pjt47@cam.ac.uk on 2009-03-01)
  65. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
  66. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from karl+w3c@la-grange.net on 2009-03-01)
  67. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
  68. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-01)
  69. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
  70. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-01)
  71. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
  72. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
  73. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-03-01)
  74. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
  75. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from michael.hausenblas@deri.org on 2009-03-01)
  76. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from karl+w3c@la-grange.net on 2009-03-01)
  77. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-01)
  78. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-01)
  79. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-01)
  80. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-01)
  81. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-01)
  82. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-01)
  83. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
  84. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
  85. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-02-28)
  86. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
  87. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-02-28)
  88. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-28)
  89. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-02-28)
  90. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-02-28)
  91. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-02-28)
  92. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-28)
  93. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-02-28)
  94. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from karl+w3c@la-grange.net on 2009-02-28)
  95. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-28)
  96. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
  97. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-28)
  98. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-28)
  99. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
  100. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-28)
  101. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
  102. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
  103. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-28)
  104. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-02-28)
  105. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-02-28)
  106. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-27)
  107. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
  108. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
  109. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-02-27)
  110. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-27)
  111. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
  112. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-27)
  113. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
  114. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rob@robburns.com on 2009-02-27)
  115. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
  116. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-27)
  117. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-27)
  118. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com on 2009-02-27)
  119. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
  120. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
  121. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
  122. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-02-27)
  123. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-27)
  124. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-02-27)
  125. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from shane@aptest.com on 2009-02-27)
  126. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
  127. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from karl@la-grange.net on 2009-02-27)
  128. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
  129. Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
  130. minutes: HTML WG telecon 2009-02-19 [draft] (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-19)
  131. Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types (from rob@robburns.com on 2009-02-17)
  132. Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au on 2009-02-17)
  133. Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types (was Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong') (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-02-16)
  134. RE: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types (was Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong') (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-02-16)
  135. ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types (was Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong') (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-02-16)
  136. RE: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-02-16)
  137. What's the problem with Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace? (from rob@robburns.com on 2009-02-16)
  138. Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-16)
  139. RE: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-02-16)
  140. Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-02-16)
  141. Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-16)
  142. Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-02-16)
  143. RE: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-02-16)
  144. minutes: HTML WG weekly telcon 22 Jan 2009 (from connolly@w3.org on 2009-01-23)
  145. {minutes} 2008-10-24 f2f meeting (day two) (from mike@w3.org on 2008-11-07)

Related notes:

Steven Pemberton took up an action write strawman on XHTML2/HTML5 wording on Oct. 15th, 2008 that was due on Oct. 22nd:
http://www.w3.org/2008/10/15-xhtml-minutes.html#action02

XHTML 2 WG - ACTION-7:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/actions/7

XHTML 2 WG - ISSUE-1 - (XHTML2 and HTML5): coordination with HTML WG on HTML5 and XHTML2 issues [Spec Reviews]:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/tracker/issues/1

Shawn Medero, 24 Oct 2008, 09:45:34

[DanC]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/472274/why-are-xhtml-5-and-xhtml-2-separate-standards

26 Jan 2009, 17:45:53

media types is another point of contention; note
another Appendix A. Compatibility Guidelines
XHTML Media Types - Second Edition
Serving the Most Appropriate Content to Multiple User Agents from a Single Document Source
W3C Working Group Note 16 January 2009
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20090116/

Dan Connolly, 30 Jan 2009, 15:38:27

demoting to raised.... no current owner.

Sam Ruby, 12 Aug 2009, 00:12:04

Changelog:

Created issue 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' nickname owned by on product , description '' non-public

24 Oct 2008, 07:51:17

nickname changed to 'html5-xhtml-namespace'

Shawn Medero, 24 Oct 2008, 09:45:34

Owner changed to 'Shawn Medero'

Shawn Medero, 24 Oct 2008, 09:45:34

Product changed to HTML 5 spec

Shawn Medero, 24 Oct 2008, 09:45:34

Status changed to 'open'

Dan Connolly, 19 Jan 2009, 22:52:52

title changed to 'Reuse of 1999 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong'

Dan Connolly, 11 Feb 2009, 21:44:33

Status changed to 'raised'

Sam Ruby, 12 Aug 2009, 00:12:04

Description changed to 'HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [namespaces ]'

James Graham, 22 Aug 2009, 10:52:58

Status changed to 'closed'

3 Sep 2009, 16:19:16


Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Chairs, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.323 2013-12-19 14:47:09 dom Exp $