Re: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

Henri Sivonen, Mon, 17 May 2010 01:57:40 -0700 (PDT):
> "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:

>> I think what Leif would like is some way to indicate in-document that
>> the document should be edited in polyglot mode so that all editors
>> would automatically do that.

> It's unclear to me what the use case is.
> I'm aware of three use cases for polyglot documents:
>  1) Serving [...]

>  2) Serving |...]

>  3) Serving [....]

> Leif, are there additional use cases that I'm missing?

Validation. Being able to offer validation quickly.
Avoiding other versioning systems from develop.
Note that I approach this not so much from the "are polyglot documents 
necessary" as from "are polyglot DOCTYPEs necessary".

  [... snippety ...]

> In general, I get a feeling that polyglot documents have more 
> intellectual appeal as a spec lawyering puzzle than they have 
> practical usefulness. I think the WG shouldn't fall into the trap of 
> chasing puzzle appeal instead of Solving Real Problems.
> P.S. What does all this have to do with "versioning"? And "DOCTYPEs" 
> in this context looks to me like a (bad) solution in search of a 
> problem...

Why does Mac OS X use use XML configuration files with Apple doctypes, 
if DOCTYPEs are useless?

HTML5 says that it doesn't define any doctypes for the XML version of 
HTML5. However, if we define a polyglot profile of XHTML5/HTML5, and if 
we deem that a specific doctype for such a profile is necessary, then 
we need to express that this DOCTYPE is permitted inside the text/html 
MIME type.

Note that what XHTML 1 in many ways were lacking, was a Appendix C 

It might be that the simplest would have been if XHTML would only be 
authored in .xhtml files. But that is extremely far from how things 
look like "in the wild".
leif halvard silli

Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 00:35:04 UTC