- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:59:58 +0200
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
On 06/09/2010 01:35 PM, James Graham wrote: > On 06/09/2010 01:21 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >> The TAG has reviewed the editor's draft "HTML/XHTML Compatibility >> Authoring Guidelines" >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html >> >> >> > as retreived 2010-06-09 CVS rev 1.14 >> We welcome this effort and have a few suggestions as follows. >> >> 1. The document should be couched as a specification. It specifies a >> set of documents, defined by various constraints, most (though not >> all, because of the constraints on what scripts do) of which can be >> checked by a validator. (This is useful spec, even though of course >> there are many types of document which are not exactly as defined >> which also have interesting properties). > > I don't think it makes sense to make this document normative on that > basis. The allowed content of a polyglot document is purely inferred > from other, already normative, texts. Giving the same status to the > underlying rules and the inferred rules seems like a recipe for trouble > since one is effectively defining the same thing in multiple places. > Hmm, so this is more complex than I first thought, since there are also judgment calls about whether features are considered compatible enough to be "polyglot". Nevertheless I would prefer that there is a clear division between the actual rules that define what the term "polyglot" means (e.g. DOM must be identical when processed by a HTML or XHTML parser) and the consequences of those rules (e.g. tag names must be in canonical case).
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 12:00:39 UTC