James Graham wrote:
Dean Edridge wrote:
I've been told recently that the "the spec supports both HTML and
XHTML equally". But I can't see this as being true.
For example: How can the spec "support both HTML and XHTML equally"
if HTML5 will become a W3C recommendation but XHTML5 will not?
It seems that there is a certain amount of confusion here. The
serialization of the HTML 5 language as XML (which we're calling, at
least for the moment, XHTML5) will become a rec along with the rest of
the spec. Since this serialization is explicitly mentioned in the
charter, it's very unlikely that it will go away.
Actually James it doesn't mention XHTML5 at all in the charter, only
XHTML. And as far as I can tell, HTML5 will one day become a rec, but I
can't see XHTML5 becoming a rec.
What I'm talking about here is having "XHTML5" officially recognised by
the W3C, not just "the XML version of HTML5". So when someone says: "my
webpage is valid XHTML5". They can actually have something official to
back them up. If nothing changes people could just say that "XHTML5
doesn't exist".
Also, if there is no problem here and there's no problem with XHTML5
becoming a "rec" then why does Karl and other W3C staff not want to use
the word (see the QA blog:
http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/html5-is-html-and-xml.html ). I think this
shows some of the problems I'm talking about. Obviously various people
don't feel comfortable about mentioning the XHTML5 name as it hasn't
been endorsed by the W3C yet.
People will certainly wonder why a XHTML spec is called "HTML5". But of
course people that are obviously anti XHTML won't care.
Dean Edridge
