W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 13:25:54 +0100
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Cc: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20121105132554186613.510c9b04@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Michael[tm] Smith, Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:46:36 +0900:
> Anyway, one problem currently is that a lot of people don't seem to know
> that the validator.nu HTML parser exists.

Making Polyglot Markup a Note is not the right way to promote the 
validator.nu parser.

> Some seem to assume it's not even
> possible for such a parser to be used with an XML toolchain, and so some
> then end up advocating for polyglot and whatever else as the best-practice
> way to do things,

First: If you can dig up someone who *seriously* promote polyglot 
markup, then I am all ears. I hear much more about how smart e.g. the 
validator.nu parser is. 

Second: You seem to think that polyglot is only about the syntactic 
cruft - typically the "/>" in void elemnets. But it is also about the 
encoding. HTML5 says that only UTF-8 is fully reliable in all aspects. 

Polyglot markup is a super subset of the sensible common ground of HTML 
and XML. In that way, polyglot markup follows the trend: It actually 
*removes* cruft - it improves by removing options.

> when in fact the ideal best practice really ought to be
> that you're free to mark up your HTML document in whatever syntax you prefer
> -- the text/html one or the XML one -- 

Why should you even have to "prefer"??? Polyglot Markup is about saying 
good bye to the need to prefer anything.

> and all your tools should be smart
> enough to consume it and handle it the way the validator.nu parser does.

And if you feed the document to a XML parser, then what?

> Another problem is that we don't yet have similar parser libraries for most
> other programming languages. That's a solvable problem, but I guess the
> solution needs to start with the people who develop and use XML toolchains
> in those languages. They need to realize it's possible to put a non-XML
> HTML parser in front of those, and understand the value of doing it.

Again, I don't think making Polyglot Markup is the key to make that 
happen. Instead of seeing Polyglot Markup as a competitor, you should 
add a option to convert the validated source to polyglot markup - a 
little bit (but only a little bit) the same way that the old W3 
validator has an option to run the validated source through HTML Tidy. 
It would be a powerful demonstration of the power of the validator.nu 
parser, no?
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 12:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:28 UTC