- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:56:13 -0800
- 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 UTC