W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-xml@w3.org > January 2012

Re: New HTML/XML Task Force Report

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:23:27 -0500
Message-ID: <4F1084AF.70606@arcanedomain.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: public-html-xml@w3.org


On 1/13/2012 6:52 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I think it's not worthwhile to point out XML Signature in the context
> of polyglot documents, because enveloped or enveloping signatures make
> the document non-polyglot and detached signatures make XML Signature
> mostly moot, since more traditional detached signatures would work as
> well.

I'm overall sympathetic to the polyglot story, but on this I agree with 
Henri. I'd tread lightly if at all on Signature with Polyglot.

> I think it doesn't make sense to mention EXI in the context of
> polyglot. Polyglot is about the same bits being both HTML and XHTML
> (and meaning the same). EXI bits are neither HTML nor XHTML bits.
> OTOH, to transfer an (X)HTML document tree as EXI, you don't need it
> to be polyglot. You mainly need it to be document.writeless.

On this I'm less convinced. The idea of polyglot is that you have a bass 
document that can be transmitted on different occasions as text/html or 
application/xhtml+xml. As far as I know, EXI is usable as a (sort of) 
encoding with the latter, so it's an option for optimizing in the cases 
where you choose to transmit as XML. With or without, any given 
transmission of a polyglot document is either the xml or the text media 
type, not both; it's the underlying document that remains unchanged. I do 
understand that using EXI changes the bits on the wire for the Entity-body, 
and that's a difference; I think there's still some value, so worth mentioning.

Noah
Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 19:51:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 13 January 2012 19:51:30 GMT