Re: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

On 05/17/2010 01:28 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 5/17/10 11:54 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> I have found that conforming to a polyglot syntax is a good first
>> order approximation of what it takes to be universally consumable.
> So from this point of view, always defaulting to polyglot syntax would
> seem to be a desirable property of a WYSIWYG editor, right?

Previously, I was merely describing my (historical) motivations, but 
since you are asking my opinion going forward, let me get the following 
out of the way:

<co-chair hat off>

My personal opinion is that tools created for use by others should 
default to always explicitly closing all open non-void elements, and 
always explicitly quoting all attribute values, and always use the 
preferred casing (generally lowercase) for element and attribute values, 
and should always insert the HTML5 doctype.

I also think that adding a trailing slash to void elements is also a 
reasonable thing to do.

I'm less convinced that adding "talisman" namespace is a requirement.

I would suggest that automatically adding <![CDATA[ ]]> markers for 
inline JavaScript and CSS is not something that should be done by default.

So, in short, I don't think that there is a simple, universal answer 
that applies everywhere.  If there is to be a switch of some kind, I 
would suggest that it be based on something that is likely to make an 
operational difference, and that's why I prefer keying off of the 
presence of the xmlns attribute on the html element.  My experience is 
that people who feel the urge to build cases against polyglot syntaxes 
tend to avoid the use of this attribute, and people who genuinely want 
XML compatibility tend to include it.  (Tim Bray being a notable 

> -Boris

- Sam Ruby


Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 17:52:58 UTC