- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:18:56 -0500
- To: scott lewis <sfl@scotfl.ca>
- Cc: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 5, 2007, at 4:08 PM, scott lewis wrote: > > On 4 Jul 2007, at 1853, Robert Burns wrote: > >> I had another thought about a a long-term solution (and basically >> this is about long-term solutions) anyway.. Is it possible that, >> by moving to an xml serialization, this problem will be solved? In >> other words, can we just do <img src="myimage' >fallback</img> >> whenever HTML5 content is served as XML. To me this should work >> (at least as a complement to the other solutions). > > Forgive me if this point has already been covered -- I may have > overlooked it in the discussion. > > HTML5 is a language with two serializations (I'll call them): HTML/ > xml and HTML5/html. These are both representations of the same > document. Both serializations of a document must parse identically, > otherwise they aren't serializations of the same language. There is > a simple test to ensure that: take a document in one serialization, > parse it, generate the other serialization from it, then parse the > other serialization and require the parsed documents are identical. > > With this method of <img> fallback, **the fallback content must be > discarded** when the document is serialized as HTML5/html. Thus, my > simple test would fail. > > Converting an HTML5 document from one serialization to the other is > a perfectly legal operation. I feel strongly that it is a bad idea > to require accessible content to be made less accessible in the > course of perfectly legal processing. Congratulations Scott. You're the first person to articulate a legitimate and coherent concern on this suggestion after lengthy back- and-forth for hours. Please add it to the wiki. I wish I had some prize to give you. I'm serious here. Take care, Rob
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 21:19:05 UTC