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

Re: Statement why the Polyglot doc should be informative

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:19:39 +0100
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20121105141939761216.7faddb1a@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Henri Sivonen, Mon, 5 Nov 2012 14:35:19 +0200:
> Polyglot markup is a bad method. On the input side, it limits the
> range of input compared to just taking both an HTML parser and an XML
> parser off the shelf. On the output side, you can’t use a generic XML
> serializer, so it’s an illusion that polyglot would let you get away
> with no HTML-specific software at the output end of the pipeline.

Forgive me for making a very obvious point: As Polyglot Markup is 
HTML-compatible, it is of course HTML-specific. It puts requirements on 
both XML editors and HTML editors. So there is not an endless room for 
that straw man. But it is not possible to run away from the fact that 
the end result *can* be edited further and/or be parsed, by today’s 
"off the shelf" tools and parsers.

> But we’ve covered the technical issues again and again. The purpose of
> the first message in this thread is to serve Process per Chair
> request—not to present any new information.

Have not seen that. But there are traditionally various disconnects 
following TPAC ...
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 13:20:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:35 UTC