Re: ISSUE-4 - versioning/DOCTYPEs

Hi, Leif, all:

one more quick question and then I'll leave this discussion to those more expert.
From: Leif Halvard Silli <> 
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@må> 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.


C. E. Whitehead 
> 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