- From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 16:50:32 -0400
- To: <public-html@w3.org>
- CC: <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, <hsivonen@iki.fi>, <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, <rubys@intertwingly.net>, <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Message-ID: <SNT142-w6505AE7F86D83C8E8FAB8CB3E40@phx.gbl>
Hi, Leif, all: one more quick question and then I'll leave this discussion to those more expert. From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 02:05:37 +0200 > Henri Sivonen, Thu, 20 May 2010 05:57:41 -0700 (PDT): >> "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote: > >>>> What KompoZer and NVu do is not a use case. >> >>> The use case is "an in-document and editor independent signal to >>> create polyglot HTML5". > >> I meant what [ARE] you are trying to accomplish that can be helped by >> having an in-band indicator for requesting polyglot output from an >> editor. > You seem to ask what I want to accomplish by requesting polyglot > syntax. Is this just another way of asking for the purpose of using > polyglot syntax in the first place? I prefer read it as if you asked > why, given the existence of a polyglot syntax, there also is need for a > indicator for this syntax. > The purpose of something that signifies a certain encoding, is of > course standardization around that encoding. By inserting the polyglot > syntax indicator, one indicates what coding flavor to use. It is very > irritating if you seek to follow a certain standard, and then suddenly, > gets your standardized documents converted into another standard, by a > tool which didn't know that you tried to follow another standard than > the default one - because you were only using a indicator that was only > a private indicator. So I'm a bit lost -- do you want to spell out to the ways to indicate the various standards and nothing more? I need to know where you will stop with this Leif -- sorry. Best, C. E. Whitehead cewcathar@hotmail.com > If there is a standardixed polyglot syntax > indicator, then I can pick the tools which respect that doctype and > tell my contacts and clients to look for the same tools. Instead of > defining my own private standard, with my own private indicator which > again requires my own private or proprietary tooL > . . . > leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 20:51:09 UTC