- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 23:02:32 +0200
- To: "Simpson, Grant Leyton" <glsimpso@indiana.edu>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Simpson, Grant Leyton, Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:51:30 -0400: > On Jun 11, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: [...] > Persuasively argued. I'm won over. :-D >> By the way, what do you think about saying "XHTML" instead of "XML"? >> >> 'Polyglot markup: HTML Compatible XHTML Documents' > > This is better yet, since the document deals specifically with XHTML > and not other applications of XML. "XML" could give the impression of a from-scratch definition of XHTML. But "XML" gives emphasize too the fact that XHTML *is* XML - authors tend to forget that. What speaks *for* 'XHTML' is the goal of an identical DOM: In a HTML5 parser, then (a) <html> is always root element and (b) always in XHTML namespace. Hence (c) a HTML 'text/html' document requires SVG, MathML etc to be embedded in HTML. Which again means that a HTML-compatible XML document (A) has to be of XHTML flavor and (B) cannot contain SVG, MathML unless embedded in XHTML. Some will undoubtably be confused and ask if not XHTML, being a reformulation of HTML in XML, isn't already XML. However, that is also the kind of question we want them to ask. So all in all, I tend to agree that 'XHTML Documents' is better. > My only addition would be a > hyphen to make "HTML Compatible" into a compound adjective: > > "Polyglot Markup: HTML-compatible XHTML Documents" Excellent. Btw, did evaluate 'polyglot' as a noun? See Lachlan & Wikipedia: [1][2] "Polyglots: HTML-compatible XHTML Documents" [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/4C10D733.8060702@lachy.id.au [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyglot_(computing) -- leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 21:03:08 UTC