- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:09:55 +0200
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Daniel Glazman, Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:20:07 +0200: > Le 10/06/10 11:46, Julian Reschke a écrit : > >> I don't think the title is difficult to understand. Julian: I suppose you meant the word "polyglot" is not difficult to understand? Or did you refer to a particular variant of the titles with that word, such as TAG's suggested version or some other? >> What I said is that I think that the audience actually *does* understand >> it, and is familiar with the term. > > I am clearly part of the audience. I am implementing an HTML (5 > included) wysiwyg editor _now_. I did not understand the title. I had > to read the document to understand the title; that's bad. Daniel: Do you find "Polyglot XHTML. HTML Compatible XML Documents" difficult to understand? Or what about this: "Polyglot markup. HTML Compatible XML Documents" ? "Polyglot markup" could diminish the possibility of misunderstanding it in linguistic way. >> And what has the current status of the document have to do with that? > > I just meant it's young enough to allow title changes. It's not even > a FPWD yet. As for the alternatives: "Inter-compatible HTML": I get sand on my teeth. "Metalanguage-independent (X)HTML5 Documents": Eh, did you say you wanted to *broaden* the audience? As for "Mixed Language Documents": Well, it is not a *mix* of two languages, really, is it? The point is: a polyglot document is able to speak two languages - same as a polyglot person is able to speak more than one language. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 11:10:32 UTC