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 17:01:54 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Pirhq-0005oe-P6@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-01-28 17:01:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> >(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 ...)
> that would be strange, but is not the case, there are no special rules for
> attributes of name id in XML. If an attribute is declared of type ID (whatever
> its name) then some additional validity rules apply.

Good point. :) Thanks. May be that very point should also be made in the
document ... !

> > 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.
> > 
> > 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
> > "DOM-equal".
> > 
> > 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.
> agreed, there have been a succession of bug reports from me on various version
> sasking that this be clarified, it's better than it was but still not crystal
> clear I agree.
> If it was made clear at the start that the document was well formed xml and
> conforming html, the additional rules were to get compatible parse trees then
> rules such as
> Polyglot markup surrounds all attribute values with quotation marks. Polyglot
> markup surrounds attribute values by either single quotation marks or by double
> quotation marks. 
> in section 7 could be removed, as this is implied by (but only a small part of)
> being well formed.

Or, instead of being removed, it could be turned into/referred to as examples.

I do think it makes sense to show authors examples of what the principles
means. And I don't mind a complete list of examples ... 

What I don't like is if the document is more like a list of things we do and
things we don't do ... without a clear expression of the principles behind the

> > 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.)
> agreed these should go as if they are there the document isn't conforming

If they could be turned into examples of something, then they could remain ... 
They are not worth mentioning "out of the blue".  But if examples of an extreme
degree of DOM-un-equality etc is needed ... they could fit it. In fact, they
could serve as examples of both DOM-(un)equality  and HTML5-invalidity.

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 17:01:56 UTC

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