[KevinH]

I am already on record as being totally against adding html parsing rules to the epub3 standard since it will further fracture the epub3 base, will make backwards compatibility with old epub2 only readers next to impossible, and is just a really bad idea in any epub3 spec. Save it for epub 4, if you must.

Second, your proposition that xml is dying is simply incorrect and quite misleading. It should not be used in the lead in to your survey. Talk about adding a bias to a survey! Most current word processors (commonly used by fiction and non-fiction authors) use XML. Xml is also heavily used in text storage and archival and databases. Although html can omit some implied end tags, and handle some void tags differently, using open and closed tags is still part of the standard. Xhtml as a spec has long ago been replaced by xml parsing rules applied to html5 and its current living spec versions. This is not going to change no matter what the W3C thinks.

Also in the lead up to your survey link, you neglect to say this change would be made in the epub3 spec, and are thereby hiding the fractures and splits it would make to our current standard. I would have a very different response if this were being proposed for an epub 4 spec, as I suspect many others would.