- 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>
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