"...W3C has compounded the problem by adding dates to ensure that the namespace URIs are unique, as if it were likely that the W3C would create another "XSL/Transform" or "xhtml" namespace in the future."
Well, they're proposing to do exactly that with XHTML 2.0. As of the latest draft (which is, granted, almost a year old), the namespace for 2.0 is:
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xhtml2
(Check out "Conformance Definition" in the WD spec.)
And so it goes, on and on and no. The Energizer Funny.
Thanks for picking that up! It seems that I have misunderestimated the ingenuity of the HTML working group.
It is amusing to note that the example XHTML 2.0 document given in the Conformance Definition would be a perfectly valid XHTML 1.0 document also, if it wasn't for the different namespace. Truly an odd decision.
But then again, mandating an xsi:schemaLocation on the root element is also very odd, given that XHTML 2.0 is supposed to be extensible, which would argue against a fixed schema.
However, I would argue that the dates in the namespace URIs are still unnecessary, as the XHTML 1.0 namespace has "xhtml" while the XHTML 2.0 namespace has "xhtml2". These are sufficiently different without adding dates as well.
Previous Message
