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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:28 UTC