W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Publication of specifications as HTML5

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:09:17 +0200
To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Cc: spec-prod@w3.org
Message-ID: <20110819160917542631.a69036ab@xn--mlform-iua.no>
David Carlisle, Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:09:41 +0100:
> On 19/08/2011 11:53, Karl Dubost wrote:
>> Will XML well formed be enough for any xml consumer. It would be a
>> low hanging fruit easy to achieve and that could satisfy everyone.
> 
> It depends why the "html4" requirement is there in the first place.
> 
> We've had the same problem with mathml forever, and I guess svg is the
> same, in that we couldn't inline mathml examples into the normative
> version of the spec.
  [...]
> What may (or may not?) be needed are content model restrictions on using
> or not using new "html5" structural features. Could a normative version
> of the spec use canvas for example?

Regarding 'inline': Perhaps I don't understand the problem fully, but 
the promise of Polyglot Markup is that the document can be consumed as 
XML. Thus, with Polyglot Markup you *could* use inline mathml and svg. 
(Another way to, at least keep the SVG/MathML in the same docuent, is 
to embed the foreign content as data: uris.)

Of course, in legacy browsers, inline foreign content when consumed as 
HTML may not work, unless there is a script or some fallback. So, 
w.r.t. content model restrictions, then fallback requirments also seems 
relevant to include. Proper fallback requirements could perhaps permit 
canvas - and other XML-less features - to be used.
-- 
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 14:09:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:18 GMT