W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

RE: Request for Volunteers: Polyglot spec

From: Tony Ross <tross@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:48:27 +0000
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "tag@w3.org" <tag@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "mjs@apple.com" <mjs@apple.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0BE6C9F65034784C8E2852B6F303DA173B5169E9@TK5EX14MBXC117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9:26 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> PS: I hope that technical limitations rather than "this is simpler for authors"
> will guide the speccing of this spec. It should define a common denominator
> for HTML5 and XHTMl5. But not anything more strict than that. E.g. I would
> like to know when I can use a minimized '<p />'
> *and* get the same DOM in both XHTML and HTML, rather than having a
> "simple" rule which requires me to *always*  avoid the minimized <p />.

While sometimes the differences between HTML and XML parsers can result in islands of common ground, I find emphasizing a path that makes writing polyglot simpler for authors more useful. Why does someone really need to know the corner cases where they can use a minimized '<p />' if '<p></p>' works everywhere?

Ultimately I recognize the balance between simplicity and complexity is a bit case-by-case and sometimes a deeper explanation is needed to enable less common use cases. I just don't see such a use case for the example you provided.

-Tony
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 22:49:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:17 UTC