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:
ACTION-79 on Larry Masinter to - send email to spark issue-60 - due 2009-02-11, closedACTION-105 on Sam Ruby to Should arrange a meeting between chairs of HTML WG and XHTML2 WG to ensure there is a plan for coordination of vocabularies to avoid incompatibilities. - due 2009-07-02, closed- Related emails:
- minutes for 2009-09-03 telcon (from mike@w3.org on 2009-09-05)
- Agenda for HTML WG telcon 2009-08-20 - Accessibility TF, HTML5 Test Suite, etc (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-09-01)
- {minutes} HTML WG telcon 2009-08-27 (from annevk@opera.com on 2009-08-27)
- {agenda} HTML WG telcon 2009-08-27 *PLEASE-READ* (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-08-26)
- ISSUE-60: html5-xhtml-namespace - suggest closing on 2009-09-03 (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-08-20)
- change policy for HTML namespace (ISSUE-60 html5-xhtml-namespace) (from connolly@w3.org on 2009-08-13)
- minutes HTML weekly 9 July for review (from connolly@w3.org on 2009-07-09)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-06-22)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-06-15)
- {cancelled} HTML WG telecon 2009-06-11 (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-06-10)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-06-01)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-05-11)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-04-27)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-04-21)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-04-15)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-04-06)
- Re: Input on the agenda (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-04-01)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-03-31)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-03-24)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-03-16)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-10)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-10)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-10)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from simonp@opera.com on 2009-03-09)
- Input on the agenda (from ian@hixie.ch on 2009-03-09)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from jonas@sicking.cc on 2009-03-06)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-06)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-06)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from lhs@malform.no on 2009-03-06)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-05)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-05)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-03-05)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from timbl@w3.org on 2009-03-05)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-03-05)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-05)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-05)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-04)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-03-04)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-04)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-04)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-02)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from Smylers@stripey.com on 2009-03-02)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from Smylers@stripey.com on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from lhs@malform.no on 2009-03-01)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-03-01)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-03-01)
- 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)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-03-01)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rsayre@mozilla.com on 2009-02-28)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-02-28)
- 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)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
- 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)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-28)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from mnot@mnot.net on 2009-02-28)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from danbri@danbri.org on 2009-02-27)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from rob@robburns.com on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from ben@adida.net on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-02-27)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from shane@aptest.com on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
- 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)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
- Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel (from hsivonen@iki.fi on 2009-02-27)
- minutes: HTML WG telecon 2009-02-19 [draft] (from julian.reschke@gmx.de on 2009-02-19)
- Re: ISSUE-4: Versioning, namespace URIs and MIME types (from rob@robburns.com on 2009-02-17)
- Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au on 2009-02-17)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- RE: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-02-16)
- What's the problem with Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace? (from rob@robburns.com on 2009-02-16)
- Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-16)
- RE: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-02-16)
- Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-02-16)
- Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from rubys@intertwingly.net on 2009-02-16)
- Re: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from mjs@apple.com on 2009-02-16)
- RE: What's the problem? 'Reuse of 1998 XHTML namespace is potentially misleading/wrong' (from masinter@adobe.com on 2009-02-16)
- minutes: HTML WG weekly telcon 22 Jan 2009 (from connolly@w3.org on 2009-01-23)
- {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
[DanC]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/472274/why-are-xhtml-5-and-xhtml-2-separate-standards
26 Jan 2009, 17:45:53media 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/
demoting to raised.... no current owner.
Sam Ruby, 12 Aug 2009, 00:12:04Display change log