W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2012

[Bug 19923] html-polyglot should be a Note

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:16:48 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-19923-2486-YWznnkK9nR@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19923

--- Comment #4 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> 
> > I object to Polyglot Markup being framed as an Extension Specification.
> 
> Can it be anything *but* an extension spec?

I don’t see why not.

> Is there anything else that allows it to be published - at all?

Unfortunalely, AFAICT, the W3C Process allows a WG to publish pretty much
whatever it likes as a Note. For example, the XHTML2 WG used this
characteristic of the Process to publish
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20090116/

> If it is not an extension spec, then what is it?

A document recounting the conclusions arising from HTML and XML specs given the
constraint that a document be conforming HTML and conforming XHTML with the
same DOM except for the representation of the xmlns attribute on the root (that
constraint being the *definition* of polyglot).

> > If
> > conformance of either the text/html or the application/xhtml+xml is not
> > fully defined, such a lack of detail should be fixed in the upstream WHATWG
> > spec.
> 
> One example of such a (possible) detail is that (at least per Validator.nu),
> then, for XHTML5, there is no requirement to use <tbody> inside a table. Do
> you suggest to fix that in the HTML5 spec?

No. It’s an intentional feature.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 14:16:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 12 November 2012 14:16:50 GMT