- From: Dean Edridge <dean@55.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:06:07 +1200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Dean Edridge wrote: > > Karl Dubost wrote: >> >> >> Dean Edridge (30 août 2007 - 20:37) : >>> To my understanding XHTML 2 is not an XML serialisation of HTML, but >>> a whole new language based on XML, not HTML4 or XHTML1.x. >> >> Just a clarification point if necessary (and not taking side on this >> debate). >> The "X" in XHTML 1.0 doesn't mean "XML serialization", but extensible. >> >> XHTML™ 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language >> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/ >> >> Maybe it should have been called "ehtml". :) >> >> PS: >> For now, when I talk about serializations of html5, I use >> html5/html >> html5/xml >> and try to use html5 only for the abstract model, not the syntax. >> >> > Yes I know that the X was supposed to stand for extensible. But in > reality I think it has come to stand for XML. And this makes a lot > more sense as it is the serialisation of the language that really is > the difference between HTML and XHTML. > Is it possible to have an update on this please? Can we call the XML serialisation of the spec XHTML 5 or not? I understand that Chris Wilson was going to speak to the XHTML 2 working group about this a few weeks ago. What was the outcome of that meeting? I'd like to know the answers to these questions as I think it is something that needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later. Thank you Dean Edridge
Received on Friday, 28 September 2007 16:06:20 UTC