- From: Simpson, Grant Leyton <glsimpso@indiana.edu>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:51:30 -0400
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jun 11, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > We are the HTML Working Group. Our task is to decide what is compatible > with 'text/html'. That is also what Appendix C sought to define. I > therefore continue to believe that "HTML Compatible XML Documents" is > more accurate and that it conveys a more useful message than the > alternative. Persuasively argued. I'm won over. > > By the way, what do you think about saying "XHTML" instead of "XML"? > > 'Polyglot markup: HTML Compatible XHTML Documents' This is better yet, since the document deals specifically with XHTML and not other applications of XML. My only addition would be a hyphen to make "HTML Compatible" into a compound adjective: "Polyglot Markup: HTML-compatible XHTML Documents" Grant
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 17:52:10 UTC