Re: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

On 5/13/10 4:28 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Boris, please review again the definition for "polyglot" documents:
> those that can be processed equally as XHTML and HTML, served
> equally well as text/html and application/xhtml+xml.

If a document indeed satisfies such a constraint, then editing it as 
XHTML should work, no?  Leif's complaint was that editing such documents 
in particular editors doesn't work, right?

> You may not have a personal interest in serving the community
> that wants to use such documents, e.g., to be able to interchange
> between XHTML and text/html but why are you insisting on preventing
> those who want such a choice from having it?

Where am I doing that?

> It's glib to say that "they're just broken", but by what
> measure are they "broken", exactly? Not meeting your personal
> requirements?

I said that an editor that makes a XHTML document that it's editing into 
non-well-formed XML is "broken".  Do you have a different adjective to 
describe such an editor?


Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 01:47:24 UTC