ISSUE-4: Basis of the appeal to "XML editing workflows"

I just re-read http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/0015.html

Point #4 talks about polyglot documents and point #10 talks about XML editing workflows.

Is there verifiable existence proof of a pre-existing XML editing workflow that:
 1) Would not work if <!DOCTYPE html> or <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "about:legacy-compat"> were used.
AND
 2) Already produces otherwise text/html-safe output (e.g. doesn't output <div/> or <br></br> and doesn't use namespace prefixes).
AND
 3) Would work with if the doctype <!DOCTYPE PUBLIC "-//W3C HTMLWG hixie//NONSGML HTML 20100401//EN" "about:legacy-compat"> were used.
?

(Observation: Either way, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with *versioning*--just with the ability of claimed existing XML editing workflows to deal with particular syntax.)

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 09:32:44 UTC