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

Re: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:03:54 +0100
Message-ID: <5097B93A.7090405@kosek.cz>
To: public-html@w3.org
On 5.11.2012 13:37, Smylers wrote:

>> If you for some reason decide to conform to such profile, it's much
>> better if such profile is normatively defined.
> Yes. Jirka, would a normative definition like that satisfy you?

Sorry, I have to admit that I don't understand to which definition you
are now reffering to. But in general I don't have strong position on
whether Polyglot should be REC or Note, so there is no need to satisfy
me in one or another way.

>> Well this problem (if ever exists) can be easily solved by adding one
>> sentence to Polyglot which will say that in the case of conflicts
>> HTML5 has precedence.
> Yes. In which case, the Polyglot spec by its own admission would no
> longer be canonical for those definitions and requirements. So it would
> be bizarre, and confusing, for it to be simultaneously claiming its
> requirements are normative and that it is out-ranked by the HTML spec.
> In effect, that would make its descriptions non-normative. So it would
> be less confusing, and more accurate, not to claim to be normative for
> those parts.

Choosing those parts is probably more work then to add one sentence
which can say that in the case of *potential* conflict HTML5 wins.

For example as both in HTML5 and in XML you have some variety in
choosing encoding, Polyglot must *normatively* define that only allowed
encoding is UTF-8.


  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member

Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 13:04:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:58 UTC