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

Re: Polyglot markup and authors

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:05:18 +0100
To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130131230518592522.c30102c6@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Noah Mendelsohn, Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:18:54 -0500:
> On 1/31/2013 12:01 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong but from all your past messages related to
>>>>polyglot I got impression that you want promote polyglot as the best
>>>>seralization option for writing out web content.
>>
>> I can't credibly deny that. #JustAdmit
> 
> It's fine for Leif to argue that position, but I do not believe the 
> TAG is trying to go that far. Rather, we suggest that there is a 
> significant community who has their own reasons for using 
> XML-compatible tool chains and content standards. In some cases it 
> may not be desirable or practical to update tools to use HTML5 
> parsers, and in any case, some of these users prefer, at least for 
> some of their processing, the stricter checking provided by XML.
> 
> Accordingly, the TAG has suggested that a Polyglot recommendation 
> would be useful to that community. Among the reasons a polyglot 
> specification would be useful include: a) avoiding the need for each 
> user to determine the intersection of XML & HTML themselves; b) 
> increasing interoperation among tools that are to support or create 
> polyglot documents; c) providing a document that other specifications 
> can reference, e.g. "Petroleum industry display page documents must 
> conform to the polyglot specification [POLY]".
> 
> So, Leif appears to be saying "polyglot is the best serialization for 
> all/most Web content"; the TAG is saying "there are important 
> communities who will be well served by publishing the polyglot 
> document as a recommendation". The TAG has not suggested that 
> polyglot is preferable to more free form HTML5 in general.

While polyglot markup can be treated as simply a passionless "trick" 
that allows XML based tools to emit conforming HTML5, it can also be an 
*approach* and *perspective* on Web page development. Seen from 
outside, a polyglot approach perhaps looks as if one sees it as the 
"best serialization". 

For example, a polyglot approach to legacy parser problems doesn't 
settle with purely HTML5-conforming methods such as a (uncommented) 
<noscript> elements. (Note: Commented <noscript> is conforming.)[1]  
Instead, it only settles with tricks that themselves conform to 
Polyglot Markup – like (for instance) MIME type tricks.[1]

[1] http://blog.whatwg.org/styling-ie-noscript

[2] http://blog.whatwg.org/supporting-new-elements-in-firefox-2

-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 22:05:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:36 UTC