- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:28:58 -0400
- To: public-html-xml@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2y60mdlfp.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> writes: > On Mar 22, 2011, at 19:50 , Norman Walsh wrote: >> I've just published the first draft of any actual substance: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/snapshot/report.html > > Thanks! Here are some quick notes: Thanks for your comments, Robin. > • if such content was accessible -> were accessible > > • impedement -> impediment > > • "Given that the world at large is unlikely to adopt polyglot > markup as the standard way to encode all HTML documents, this solution > may have limited applicability." I think that we can be less careful > and safely say that it has limited applicability. Ok. I tried to be a little less careful. > • The XML consuming HTML use case should really point to the Infoset > coercion part of HTML: > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-end.html#coercing-an-html-dom-into-an-infoset > (Probably towards the end where the solution is outlined). Done. > • "As the HTML5 ecosystem grows, it's easy to imagine a day when > HTML5 toolchains are widespread and popular." I think we're there > already :) I'd just go with "HTML tool chains are widespread and > popular." Ok. What tools besides browsers and Henri's validator exist that accept HTML5 as input? > • "These rules will not always produce the same DOM that an XML > parser would have produced." In fact, these rules will rarely produce > the same DOM. (Should we be saying Infoset? Or don't we care?) I made that more explicit. I also added a note to the introduction trying to gloss over the various possible distinctions we could make between Infosets and DOM in particular and any abstract or concrete representation of a parsed document. > • I think that the reading XML in an HTML environment use case is a > bit weird. At the very least "translating XML to HTML5" would need at > least some description of what that entails. I'd tend to think that > "parse it with an XML parser, then you have a DOM that can be used in > HTML settings" is more realistic. HTML environments do in general tend > to have XML parsers around (e.g. DOMParser). Which ones don't? I added a note that such a translation may be difficult :-) and the possibility that using an XML parser might also work. > • "When the HTML5 parser encounters unfamiliar markup, it assumes > that such markup is an erroneous attempt to generate or author valid > HTML5." I'm not sure that the parser can be said to being "authoring" > content. We might get into tricky lawsuits with that one. Fixed. > • "result in a DOM representation that can differ more-or-less > arbitrarily from the DOM" I don't think that the differences are more > or less arbitrary — but I'd say that it can differ "more or less > radically". Ok. > • "by specifying the content type “application/xml”." There's a > markup error here (type is <tt> for some reason). Also, I'd add > something to the effect of "or any other applicable media type". For > instance, SVG Web, which uses this technique, places SVG in script > elements with type image/svg+xml. Fixed. > Do we have a plan for reaching some kind of collective conclusion? We have a goal to do that, but not yet a plan :-/ Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation Phone: +1 413 624 6676 www.marklogic.com
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 15:29:27 UTC