- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 03:55:41 +0200
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
Short-name + title:
"Polyglot XHTML. HTML Compatible XML Documents."
Justification: The title should express the basic principle - XML docs
authored as HTML compatible. The title – "HTML compatible XML
documents" – does that. The short-name – "Polyglot XHTML" – usefully
expresses this principle in two words.
Positive side effects:
1) XML + HTML + XHTML combined into a meaningful name.
2) Possible to associate from "Appendix _C_" to "Compatible".
Nathan, Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:20:10 +0100:
> Personally I don't see what's wrong with the term 'Polyglot', but
> following the thread thus far I'd suggest that 'mixed language' is as
> close as you'd get to a definition of Polyglot which most would
> understand, thus would put forward:
>
> 1: XML/HTML Polyglot Documents
> 2: XML/HTML Polyglot (Mixed Language) Documents
> 3: XML/HTML Mixed Language Documents
> David Booth wrote:
>> Or perhaps "inter-compatible"?
>>
>> On Wed, 2010-06-09 at 19:43 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>>> Le 9 juin 2010 à 08:49, Paul Libbrecht a écrit :
>>>> If I dare, the name polyglot does have a multicultural connotation
>>> which only insiders that know that HTML and XHTML are two different
>>> "cultures" can understand ;-).
>>>
>>>
>>> s/polyglot/versatile/ ?
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 01:56:20 UTC