[whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90
liorean at gmail.com
Wed Dec 12 10:37:04 PST 2007
On 29/12/2006, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Why would you need a plugin for <code/> ?
For the ability to distinguish the syntax and semantics of varying
types of code, in a virtually infinite set of possible different
syntaces and semantics.
> Currently, Web Applications 1.0 and XHTML 2 are both proceeding. Web
> Applications 1.0 has two serializations: an HTML serialization and a
> (slightly) richer XHTML serialization. Unfortunately, the current plan
> is for both "XHTML 5" (as Web Applications 1.0's XHTML serialization is
> jocularly called) and XHTML 2 to use the same namespace, so they will
> have to be distinguished by their schemas instead.
Their schemas are not present in the document. As such, user agents
will have to assume one set of semantics over the other. Simply
speaking, there can one be a single meaning of the XHTML namespace in
a single user agent without jumping through an endless amount of
hoops. And for XHTML5, that namespace must be the same as for XHTML
1.0. Changing the namespace is a no-go. So, if XHTML2 really wants to
play in the browser space, it needs to either fall in line or change
> I personally suspect XHTML 2 development will continue. Web Applications
> 1.0's big strength, backwards compatibility, is simultaneously a
> weakness from which XHTML 2 need not suffer.
Well, the lack of backwards compatibility coupled with the use of the
same namespace makes XHTML5 and XHTML2 mutually exclusive.
> Like others also active on the www-html mailing list, I see no
> contradiction between expending effort on both drafts.
As long as it's done under full knowledge and intention of XHTML2 not
being used on the web, yes. If the goal of XHTML2 is to be usable on
the web, it needs to keep the guarantees and semantics of XHTML1.0 and
XHTML5, only ever doing changes by addition.
Or, under a different namespace.
David "liorean" Andersson
More information about the whatwg