W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Polyglot markup and authors

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:15:43 -0500
Message-ID: <51212C5F.7070202@arcanedomain.com>
To: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
CC: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>

On 2/17/2013 10:17 AM, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> But I do feel, having a polyglot document structure improves
> interoperability of information represented by them

I'm not quite sure, but I think Mukul is trying to make a point that I 
think is interesting: if a specification like polyglot were available and 
widely known, then the chances might go up that whoever sourced Mukul's 
document would in fact have used it.

Part of what standards do is to encourage people to do in standard ways 
things they might not have bothered to do cleanly otherwise. For example, 
many people who use XML do so because the standard is there, the tools are 
there etc.; it's pretty easy now to go to someone who is contemplating an 
ad-hoc format and say: "how about JSON, or XML or HTML" as appropriate.

There's a circularity: to some extent it's hard to tell how valuable things 
like polyglot can be until their out there, publicized, and supported by 
tools. (I'm NOT making the case that this argument justifies doing 
polyglot...just noting the circularity, which can be used to justify either 
conclusion IMO).

Noah
Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 19:16:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 February 2013 19:16:12 GMT