- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:16:48 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19923 --- Comment #4 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > > I object to Polyglot Markup being framed as an Extension Specification. > > Can it be anything *but* an extension spec? I don’t see why not. > Is there anything else that allows it to be published - at all? Unfortunalely, AFAICT, the W3C Process allows a WG to publish pretty much whatever it likes as a Note. For example, the XHTML2 WG used this characteristic of the Process to publish http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-xhtml-media-types-20090116/ > If it is not an extension spec, then what is it? A document recounting the conclusions arising from HTML and XML specs given the constraint that a document be conforming HTML and conforming XHTML with the same DOM except for the representation of the xmlns attribute on the root (that constraint being the *definition* of polyglot). > > If > > conformance of either the text/html or the application/xhtml+xml is not > > fully defined, such a lack of detail should be fixed in the upstream WHATWG > > spec. > > One example of such a (possible) detail is that (at least per Validator.nu), > then, for XHTML5, there is no requirement to use <tbody> inside a table. Do > you suggest to fix that in the HTML5 spec? No. It’s an intentional feature. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 14:16:49 UTC