W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Highlighting issue of XML support in DOM 4

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 09:37:20 -0500
Message-ID: <50FEA420.1020202@arcanedomain.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Daniel Glazman <daniel@glazman.org>, Norm Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>

On 1/22/2013 9:22 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> I think the TAG should not push for change in this case. The XML
> declaration is not part of the logical content of the document.

I think it's a bit more than that. The reason we're having the polyglot 
debate is that XML and HTML are not just alternate serializations of the 
same thing: they are different models, but with sufficient overlap that 
it's tempting to some to identify the subset that can be serialized in both 
forms.

So, I would agree that UTF-8 vs. UTF-16 is a serialization artifact; I 
think that indicating whether something is an XML or HTML document is 
deeper and relates to the type or nature of the content as well as its 
serialization. I think you can make the case that it belongs in the DOM 
even if serialization artfacts don't

Furthermore, I agree that serialization artifacts should be considered 
separate from the content, but whether it's in all cases appropriate to 
hide them when parsing I am less sure. Again, I'm not convinced that 
HTML/XML is a purely a serialization difference in the general case (I 
understand that, once you've decided your underlying model is HTML5, then 
it is.)

Thank you.

Noah
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 14:37:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 January 2013 14:37:47 GMT