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.

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 04:55:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:19 UTC