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

Re: Fwd: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:33:31 +0100
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20121105183331114130.2d6e5d4b@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Lachlan Hunt, Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:56:54 +0100:
> On 2012-11-05 15:13, Glenn Adams wrote:
>> OK, then go to back to something I asked previously, are you asserting that
>> the Polyglot document cannot or should not make any normative statements?
> 
> I am asserting that it should not make normative statements regarding 
> document conformance because it can, by definition, only describe the 
> overlap of the HTML and XHTML serialisations.  All of the constraints 
> descrived in it are inherently logical conclusions from the normative 
> requirements in HTML5, and as such, do not need to be normatively 
> defined twice.
> 
> The document should clarify that everything within it is 
> non-normative.  Currently, only the introduction is labelled as such.
  [...] 
> I realise that a NOTE can contain normative statements and never said 
> otherwise.  Bus, as I have already made clear, my rationale for why 
> the document should only contain non-normative statements is 
> independent of my rationale for why it should not be a Rec.

So, if I understand Lachlan correctly, then he sees it like so:

a) Polyglot Markup could, even as NOTE, contain normative
   statements, HOWEVER:

b) Even as a NOTE, Lachlan thinks that it should not make any 
   normative statements but should instead follow the pattern
   of the introduction and say that nothing in it is normative.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 17:34:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 November 2012 17:34:07 GMT