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

Re: Atom vs Polyglot

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 22:55:13 -0600
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Message-Id: <20130325225513.bdc4627c56f2410d869235de@bisonsystems.net>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> > In general, I think polyglot is potentially useful when content or
> > fragments that are usually served as text/html need to be included
> > in XHTML or other XML documents.
> 
> That is true, but the existence of a Polyglot spec wouldn't have
> changed the design of Atom. There was a big group of people who
> simply did not want to be bothered with generating well-formed XHTML,
> thus Atom had to support that mode as well.
> 

And yet, it wouldn't hurt the Atom spec if the XHTML serialization part
referenced Polyglot.  Sometimes it's desirable that there be seamless
transition within a toolchain between XHTML and HTML.  I forget the
particulars, but I worked on a project which used Xforms to manipulate
HTML inside of Atom.

The user-agent could only handle escaped HTML, while the server
toolchain was processing XHTML.  Working out what amounts to PG on my
own based on Appendix C, was a pain.  I doubt I'm the only developer
who's been there, done that; probably why I'm emphatic on PG even if I
haven't been expressing myself well of late.

-Eric
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 04:55:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 04:55:30 GMT