- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 21:41:18 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- CC: "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, public-html@w3.org
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? -Boris
Received on Friday, 14 May 2010 01:47:24 UTC