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

Re: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 14:33:46 +0100
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20121106143346614109.8ab9495a@xn--mlform-iua.no>
David Carlisle, Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:21:29 +0000:
> On 06/11/2012 10:52, Smylers wrote:
>> Would anybody else object to the description parts of the Polyglot
>> spec not being normative (so long as the definition is)?
> 
> What I think it should be (which isn't quite what it is now, probably)
> is that the spec should be on REC track and should normatively define
> the name of the profile/subset and normatively define that subset, but
> that subset should be defined via _syntax_.
> 
> Any statements that documents that obey that syntax produce the same DOM
> in text/html and application/xml parsing should not be normative as the
> effect of parsing a given document (and thus whether the two results are
> the same) is normatively defined elsewhere.
> 
> This is not much different from say the MathML profile for CSS
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/mathml-for-css/
> 
> which is a REC.

This sounds like a good idea, in a way. From this perspective, it would 
be permitted to use <noscript></noscript> in Polyglot Markup, I guess. 
And why not? I guess one can emulate how it works, via JavaScript and 
CSS.

But I think that those that are eager to point out the difference 
between XML and HTML, would not be very happy with it. Because they 
would fear that people would choose XML syntax "just because it is 
good", without understanding the rest of it.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 13:34:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 6 November 2012 13:34:28 GMT