[Bug 20707] Please add a Scope section per the qualification of the TAG's support for REC track publication

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20707

--- Comment #6 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> ---
(In reply to comment #5)
>First, what Jeni said.

Since you did not comment on my proposed ammendment to the text, I am hereby
submitting an updated version:

* Polyglot Markup can be produced by any XHTML or HTML tool
  that adheres to its requirements. As such it is available
  to anyone striving for the robustness of this format.

* Polyglot markup might be simplest to produce in controlled
  environment tool chains and authoring tools. For XML-based
  HTML tools or systems intended for the most general contexts
  contexts, before deciding about output markup, they should,
  for maximum flexibility use the technique an HTML parser
  that produces a DOM or event stream that can be consumed as
  XML.

* Polyglot Markup is particulary suitable if the author wants
  to limit their output to fewer, safer options. Polyglot 
  Markup does not aim to be the sole option, but it does aim
  to be the safest and the most robust.

* In addition, as a subset of XML, Polyglot Markup represents
  a target format for XHTML production tools that are sought
  updated for HTML5-conformance through adjustments of their
  XHTML output. At the time of writing, it was the sole such
  XHTML5-subset that had been specified.

> “Produces XHTML syntax” is ambiguous.

If it isn't well-formed, then it isn't XML. I meant that statement *only* about
well-formed XHTML documents.


> XHTMLness depends on Content-Type—not syntax.

Ditto for HTMLness.


> As for syntax, HTML5 deliberately allows XHTMLisms in text/html to
> ease migration to valid HTML5 from Appendix C-influenced markup.

Indeed.


> It would be
> entirely inappropriate to say that if you have some XHTMLisms in text/html,
> you have to go all the way to polyglot.

Indeed. I did not intend to say something like that. Over all, I tried to avoid
what what I perceive that you do not avoid, namely a message on the pattern
that "if you have such and such starting point, then you must convert it to
this or that flavor of HTML5".  All I tried to say that, regardless of
backgorund, then polyglot markup is definitely the most sensible variant of
XHTML5 to produce, if first you have decided to produce XHTML5. (If fact, for
now, it is the only description of such a XHTML5 variant.)


> That would make migration harder—not easier.

Any langauge that hints that polyglot is only suitable for authors that have
such and such starting point, decreases agreement, in my view.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 15:06:19 UTC