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

Re: Statement why the Polyglot doc should be informative

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:52:14 +0100
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20121109145214888191.06f125a9@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Henri Sivonen, Fri, 9 Nov 2012 15:25:41 +0200:

> Exhibit A about confusion: “By doing this, your documents will almost
> assuredly be better structured and of higher quality, yet still be
> able to be treated as HTML5.”
> (http://www.sitepoint.com/have-you-considered-polyglot-markup/)

May be that sentence could be refined. But I wholeheartedly subscribe 
to the spirit of it. Feel free to explain why that is a sign of 

> Exhibit B about confusion:
> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2012/11/09/In-defence-of-Polyglot

> conflates the problem of generating output that works with incompliant
> HTML consumers with polyglotness.

Well, there is some truth to the claim that HTML-compatible XHTML can 
overcome difficulties in incompliant HTML-consumers. 

> To keep truth in advertising, a profile that documents a set of
> restrictions preferred by a group of polyglot enthusiasts should not
> be labeled so that it looks like it's documenting the subset of HTML
> that is also XHTML with the same semantics. For example, if you want
> to define a profile that is successfully consumed by the HTML parser
> of libxml2, I think you should design the profile by studying the
> behaviors of the HTML parser in libxml2 and label the profile
> something like “libxml2-compatible HTML profile”

Is there a concrete reason to mention libxml2? 

If I could wish for things, then I think <meta http-equiv=Content-Type 
content="text/html;charset=UTF-8"/> should be permitted in XHTML5, - 
and not only <meta charset="UTF-8"/>. That would increase the 
capability of legacy content producers to create more or less polyglot 
markup. May be I should file a bug?

> instead of drawing
> conclusions from the definitions of HTML and XHTML and labeling the
> result “polyglot”.

The result is polyglot. So one could ask why shouldn't one label it so? 
But of course we could bikeshed about another name.
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 13:52:49 UTC

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