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

Re: Polyglot Markup/XML encoding declaration

From: Steven Roussey <sroussey@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:54:03 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikZ2YFT2pMurO-Lo_dH3YcjdAf6bgn1XR65sG4e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>, Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, public-i18n-core@w3.org
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> The cat is out of
> the sack 11 years ago.

Perhaps the truant cat should get put back where it belongs, finally.

I am strongly against the idea of polyglot documents. The
copy-and-paste example illustrates both the good and the bad: people
copy (example) code into their own while learning things. They will
copy the good part, which is likely a document fragment, and the bad
part which is a bunch of stuff enclosing the fragment. They aren't
trying to build stuff that can be either one or the other. They are
going to choose one and go with it.

I think the whole polyglot section should only refer to document
fragments, and never to documents. If document editors want to know if
they should enforce polyglot rules for the document, then they should
use a hint, like <meta name="polyglot" content="true"/> or <meta
name="polyglot" content="html,xhtml"/>.

I don't think we are doing anyone any favors with polyglot
*documents*. We should put XHTML 1.0, Appendix C genie back into the
bottle and bury it.

-steve--
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:54:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:10 GMT