W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > January 2011

[Bug 11909] The principles of Polyglot Markup - validity? well-formed? DOM-equality?

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:53:43 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Piqdr-0000Al-Up@jessica.w3.org>

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i
                   |                            |ua.no

--- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-01-28 15:53:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> there is no dtd for html so xml valididy can't be an issue.

Ok ... right. I misread what "all" refers to in this sentence of XML 1.0:

]] Validity constraint
  [Definition: A rule which applies to all valid XML documents. [[

I failed to follow the link on "valid", which leads to this:

]] [Definition: An XML document is valid if it has an associated document type
declaration and if the document complies with the constraints expressed in it.]

Thus I were under the misunderstanding that e.g. <p id="666"/> would be invalid
in "all" XML, even without DTD. (What I must admit I find a bit strange is that
the mere presence of a DTD, regardless of what the DTD says, would cause <p
id="666"/> to be invalid ...)

Thus Polyglot Markup needs only to say that, as long as (or because/when) there
is no DTD, then XML-validity is not an issue. But I would not mind if it also
said what to remember when/if there *is* a DTD. After all, the goal is to have
an equal experience also in that circumstance.

> I think the polyglot spec should assume the document is conforming html and
> well formed xml. Thus the only rules it needs to discuss are those aimed at
> making DOM equal (or equal enough (eg CDATA in script)) for html or xml
> parsing.

To say that Polyglot Markup describes a DOM-equal subset of conforming HTML and
well-formed XML, sounds like a good description of the principle(s). From that
definition it should be easy to understand what "HTML-compatible XHTML" means.
May be the spec should say that when it says "HTML-compatible" then it means

The spec could then explain that the rules for conforming HTML are found in
HTML5. And also say that the DOM to which polyglot markup needs to adapt, is
also described in HTML5. But that the rules for well-formed XML are found in
XML. The spec could then, as you say, go on to discuss the consequenses of
these rules and principles.

I hope that this can be dealt with more systematically in the spec.

Thus, the spec should not mention <xmp> and <plaintext>. Or, if it mentions
them, then it should make clear that they are invalid in HTML5 and that they
are impossible to include in a DOM equal polyglot. (Well, xmp is possible, as
long as one ignores the purpose of it in the first place.)

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 28 January 2011 15:53:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:04 UTC