- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:34:35 -0500
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
On 11/06/2012 09:52 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > On 2012-11-06 15:17, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> For me to not object this, the principles would need to be extended >> with a 5th principle: >> >> 5. Limits itself to "the encoding" - that is: UTF-8. >> >> It doesn't matter to me whether you accept that principle as a "known >> exception" or as a logical reading of the specs that polyglot markup >> relies on. > > The exceptions I listed are cases where the inclusion of certain markup > results in necessary, but semantically insignificant differences from > parsing, and where the markup is still conforming in both > serialisations. Non-UTF-8 encodings are conforming in both > serialisations and there is no need for such a restriction. > > I will maintain an objection to any normative definition of polyglot > markup that imposes additional restrictions on conforming markup that > are not derived directly from the conforming intersection of the HTML > and XHTML serialisations. > > That is, if something is conforming in both serialisations and does not > result in a significant semantic difference in interpretation between > HTML and XML parsers, then it should be considered conforming polyglot > markup. > > I have no objection, however, to strongly recommending the use of UTF-8, > as long as it is non-normative. Forgive me if I missed it, but it would be helpful to me if you could explain why you are taking this position? For example, are you against any and all definitions of profiles of any spec? The reason why I ask is that you don't appear to be against "strongly recommending" UTF-8, nor have you authored a bug report against this specification providing a use case for other encodings. - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 18:35:10 UTC