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

Re: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:18:18 +0100
Message-ID: <5099708A.3030701@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 06/11/12 19:49, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> First, when in XHTML mode, then BlueGrifon and SeaMonkey Composer are
> already relatively polyglot. (The only exceptions is, I think, the XML
> encoding declaration, which it inserts even for HTML files. Plus that
> it uses <meta http-equiv=* caontent=* /> - which never is allowed per
> HTML5, not even in pure XHTML5. It could even seem as if BlueGriffon
> adheres to the restriction to only have "safe" content inside <script>
> and <style>.)
>
> Second, if BlueGriffon were serious about polyglot markup, then e.g.
> BlueGrifofon’s Wizard function did not need to ask me choose between
> HTML formats and also did not need to ask me about the encoding. Also,
> for generated files, then I would be able to choose the format simply
> by changing the file suffix. I look forward to that day.

Leif, the <meta> issue is known and filed as a bug. Next version coming.
Second, if BlueGriffon did what you outline above - and I tried - users
will still be pinging about it, requesting html5 or xhtml5 and encoding
settings.

Writing a spec is one thing; having it match the market and users'
expectations is another one, sorry.

</Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 20:18:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:35 UTC