- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:52:23 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19925 --- Comment #15 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > <h1>Polyglot Markup: HTML-Compatible XHTML Documents</h1> > <h2>A conservative and serialization agnostic profile of HTML5.</h2> While not yet convinced about removing "XHTML", I very much support Sam’s idea of adjusting the scope of the spec. However, we should look wider than the robustness principle/Postel’s law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle Other relevant principles could be * Redundancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(engineering) * Fault tolerance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_tolerance For instance, redundancy considerations could be a reason to recommend to have more than one failure point when it comes to setting the encoding. Another example is the DOCTYPE: It is of no use in XHTML, but the risk that XHML is consumed as text/html is so high that it is a good idea to include it even in pure XHTML documents. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 05:52:27 UTC