Re: New HTML/XML Task Force Report

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> I have incorporated those editorial changes that I felt would be
> uncontroversial:
>
>  http://www.w3.org/2010/html-xml/snapshot/report-2012-01-12.html

This round of edits added a link to an outdated document:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2004/xhtml-faq#browsers

I think the Report shouldn't link to a document as out of date (both
technically and politically) as that one.

> 3. The principle substantive comments from the TAG (which I assume
> will be refleced in the minutes when they're made public) were about
> polyglot markup. I think some good points were made about the
> applicability of polyglot in closed environments where documents are
> being produced for publication but also for other (internal) uses. In
> particular, it was observed that polyglot documents could be
> transmitted with EXI or signed digitally with XML Signature. The
> ability to publish exactly the same documents on the web as can be
> used with those technologies is, in my opinion, worth calling out.

I think it's not worthwhile to point out XML Signature in the context
of polyglot documents, because enveloped or enveloping signatures make
the document non-polyglot and detached signatures make XML Signature
mostly moot, since more traditional detached signatures would work as
well.

I think it doesn't make sense to mention EXI in the context of
polyglot. Polyglot is about the same bits being both HTML and XHTML
(and meaning the same). EXI bits are neither HTML nor XHTML bits.
OTOH, to transfer an (X)HTML document tree as EXI, you don't need it
to be polyglot. You mainly need it to be document.writeless.

I suggest taking out the above-mentioned link to an outdated document
and publishing without adding stuff about XML Signature or EXI.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 11:52:59 UTC