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

Re: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 14:02:18 +0000
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20121106140218.GL2391@stripey.com>
Lachlan Hunt writes:

> Subject to the condition that the spec clearly states that everything
> else in the document is non-normative, I would be satisfied with a
> normative definition of the term "polyglot markup" (or similar) as
> being markup that conforms with the intersection of the HTML and XHTML
> serialisations, such that the markup meets the following constraints:
> 
> 1. Conforms to the syntactic requirements of the HTML serialisation
> 2. Conforms to the syntactic requirements of the XHTML serialisation
>    (including well-formedness)
> 3. Results in a *conforming document* when parsed with either an HTML or
>    XML parser
> 4. Results in equivalent tree representations (e.g. DOM) when parsed
>    using either HTML or XML parsers, subject to the known exceptions
>    for:
>    a. xml, xmlns and xlink namespaced attributes,
>    b. Any insignificant differences in the value of textContent
>       for script and style elements.
>    c. Any semantically insignificant whitespace differences.

Thanks.

It sounds like we may be able to get consensus (or at least a lack of
formal objections) around that.

So long as the definition is normative, Jirka isn't bothered about the
rest of the spec not being normative:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/0054.html

David Carlisle made a different suggestion but didn't actually object:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Nov/0059.html

Cheers

Smylers
-- 
New series of TV puzzle show 'Only Connect' (some questions by me)
Mondays at 20:30 on BBC4, or iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/onlyconnect
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 14:02:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 6 November 2012 14:02:48 GMT