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

Re: Notes on the draft polyglot document Polyglot document

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 03:55:41 +0200
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100610035541813244.c860fbeb@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Short-name + title:

      "Polyglot XHTML. HTML Compatible XML Documents."

Justification: The title should express the basic principle - XML docs 
authored as HTML compatible. The title – "HTML compatible XML 
documents" – does that. The short-name – "Polyglot XHTML" – usefully 
expresses this principle in two words.

Positive side effects:

1) XML + HTML + XHTML combined into a meaningful name.
2) Possible to associate from "Appendix _C_" to "Compatible".

Nathan, Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:20:10 +0100:
> Personally I don't see what's wrong with the term 'Polyglot', but 
> following the thread thus far I'd suggest that 'mixed language' is as 
> close as you'd get to a definition of Polyglot which most would 
> understand, thus would put forward:
> 
> 1: XML/HTML Polyglot Documents
> 2: XML/HTML Polyglot (Mixed Language) Documents
> 3: XML/HTML Mixed Language Documents

> David Booth wrote:
>> Or perhaps "inter-compatible"?
>> 
>> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 19:43 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>>> Le 9 juin 2010 à 08:49, Paul Libbrecht a écrit :
>>>> If I dare, the name polyglot does have a multicultural connotation
>>> which only insiders that know that HTML and XHTML are two different
>>> "cultures" can understand ;-).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> s/polyglot/versatile/ ?
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 01:56:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:09 GMT