Personally, I would say yes, new namespace. Because I think an XHTML module should be a radical departure from HTML, not in terms of it's output, but in terms of it's construction.
An XHTML module should - by default - be built using the existing XML tools, and shouldn't be outputting 'XML-like code' but actual machine-generated bona-fide XML.
From the otherside, outputting XHTML and using it in a HTML context is almost as bad as outputting non-XML in an XHTML context. <br />, for example, is invalid markup in HTML4.0 (strictly speaking). Of course, browsers will ignore the '/' but you're giving up clean HTML and getting tag soup. Some browsers, especially Moz, might even start going into almost-standards most/quirks mode, or something, which is even worse.
Strictly speaking, I don't think one is a subset of the other, but I would love to see how you propose to do XHTML modules. By thinking about implementation, I'm probably thinking on very different lines to you (or am I?).
In reply to Re: RFC: New rootlevel CPAN namespace: XHTML
by kal
in thread RFC: New rootlevel CPAN namespace: XHTML
by jeffa
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |