W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2010

[Bug 11064] unstated requirement to be valid.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:23:57 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P7nor-00073a-Nv@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11064

--- Comment #6 from David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> 2010-10-18 11:23:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
yes but which requirements?
> 
> All the document conformance requirements. That is, all the normative
> statements about document or authors.

OK so if the polyglot spec aims to say, given a conformant html5 document, what
further constraints the document must satisfy in order to get a compatible DOM
if parsed as XML then

a) it needs to say that, and
b)it needs to add extra constraints to explain why

http://monet.nag.co.uk/~dpc/poly/t1.html

does not produce the same DOM from an html5 and XML parser. As far as I can see
it is conformant html5 (validator.nu agrees) and it appears to meet all the
constraints in this spec, but you don't get an XML DOM as t1.html isn't well
formed as XML.

If the intention is that the constraints only apply to conformant html5
documents that are well formed XML then
a) the polyglot spec should say that, and
b) if it did say that, then  many of the constraints that are currently
specified (such as quoting attribute values, and using uppercase <!DOCTYPE) are
redundant.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 11:23:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:31 UTC