- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 08:26:07 -0500
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 12/03/2012 07:48 AM, Robin Berjon wrote: > On 03/12/2012 12:02 , Henry S. Thompson wrote: >> Robin Berjon writes: >>> Saying "polyglot" here just doesn't help: very little real-world >>> content uses it. Note that the section clearly looks at polyglot and >>> gives a clear reason for not using it in this case. >> >> That depends on where you look. I know of a number of companies whose >> products produced, by design, HTML-compatible XHTML, which we would >> now call polyglot, precisely because it gave them the ability to >> post-process with XML tools while at the same time serving to IE6 >> clients confidently. The parallel requirements aren't going away, and >> polyglot HTML5 will serve them very well. > > I know there is polyglot in the wild, I've used it in the past. But > there's a big difference between "some people use it" and "it's used > enough that one can build a useful strategy relying on it for arbitrary > content". Who sets the bar for "enough"? If three people want to get together and collaborate, should the fact that some (and indeed many) may not want to participate be ground for stopping them? - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 13:26:43 UTC