W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Moving XBL et al. forward

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:56:13 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikGVyFqs+WaeKJy6FEtX6=y4qCipgJdc+2Q06cH@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "ext Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Daniel Glazman
<daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> Le 10/03/11 16:55, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>> The HTML serialization of an ordinary web page isn't usable in a user
>> agent having no knowledge of HTML, either.  Why is this different?
>
> Do you have different serializations for another helper technology
> called CSS ? No. Why should it be different here?

Languages whose syntax is *significantly* different from HTML/XML,
like CSS or WebVTT, don't run into the "dual representation" issue
because, well, attempting to represent them in HTML would be a ton of
work and would result in something fairly unrecognizable.

As Cameron noted, however, it seems to be useful and accepted to
expose XML/HTML languages in both an XML and an HTML serialization, as
the two languages are very close to each other and the differences are
relatively minor.  Those minor differences, unfortunately, tend to
cause authors quite a lot of problems when they're currently using one
and try to use the other, so allowing an author to use whichever they
prefer is a good thing.

We now expose an HTML serialization of SVG and MathML embedded in
HTML.  Similarly, Component Model in HTML will have an HTML
serialization, but it's easy to imagine it also having an XML
serialization for use directly in SVG or similar.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 22:57:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:43 GMT