W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Rescinding the request to the HTML WG to develop a polyglot guide

From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 15:05:09 +0900
Message-Id: <01B856C9-78C0-4497-AED8-7B88BCB1B515@opera.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "www-tag\@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>

Le 6 déc. 2012 à 23:03, Henry S. Thompson a écrit :
> a statement of fact: _if_ you
> produces what it defines as *polyglot markup*, _then_ the result will

*produces* is used. So I guess you include the output of authoring tools and humans.

> a) be conformant HTML5 per HTML5 [1a];
> b) be well-formed XML per XML 1.0 [2];
> c) be conformant XHTML5 per HTML5 [1b];
> c) produce nearly-identical DOMs when processed as XML or HTML per
>    HTML5.

[…] note that these are individual requirements, but not the requirements of polyglot itself. The polyglot spec still needs its own conformance section which defines what it means to be polyglot for different tools, producers and consumers.


> There is no suggestion in [3] that anyone _should_ produce polyglot
> markup, or that it is somehow preferrable to non-polyglot.

indeed. And that's true for any specifications. The conformance is defined with regards to the technology, not to the business rules chosen by an organization. 

OTOH, an organization, a web agency, etc might choose the requirement of dealing only with polyglot documents. BUT this is out of the scope of this document. And that's fine. Exactly like an agency could require to have html5 documents only.

> Note that for _definitional_ specifications such as this one progressing to REC does _not_ require implementation, since it is only referring specifications/documents which may include implementable conformance requirements involving the definition(s) provided.


It's not about definitional specifications, but any specifications
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transition-reqs

and specifically

* A statement that all requirements have been fulfilled or a listing of unfulfilled requirements and the rationale for advancing the document though some requirements have not been met.
* Evidence of wide review and that dependencies with other groups have been resolved;

which translates in technical specifications by implementability (and not necessary implementations).

The CR phase defines usually what are the required criteria for proving implementability. It is up to the Working Group to define something very loose or something super strict (both ends would not make sense). It's a question of finding a reasonable level.


So Polyglot markup can be tested. It doesn't mean it is necessary software implementations, but it also could be. :)



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Friday, 7 December 2012 06:06:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 December 2012 06:06:28 GMT