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 15:01:16 +0100
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20121105150116553722.c0c308ed@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Glenn Adams, Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:42:44 +0800:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <
>> Smylers, Mon, 5 Nov 2012 12:37:37 +0000:
>>> The definition of the term "polyglot markup" is in a section explicitly
>>> marked as non-normative in the current draft spec, despite being linked
>>> to from elsewhere in that document as a definition:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-polyglot-20121025/#dfn-polyglot-markup
>>> I think it's confusing that this definition _isn't_ normative, and I
>>> don't understand what linking to a non-normative definition means, or
>>> how there can be normative requirements for creating something which
>>> doesn't itself have a normative definition.
>> I believe that it is common, in specs, to denote principles (because
>> this is a principle and not a definition, I would say) as
>> non-normative. I believe this is also the way the HTML5 spec is
>> structured.
> A definition of a principle in a spec can certainly be considered (by that
> spec) as a formal definition and can be marked as (a) normative (principle)
> within that spec.
> Perhaps here, the section defining "polyglot markup" should be marked as
> normative if it is used in a normative fashion elsewhere.
> FYI, all ISO and ITU standards consider defined terms/phrases as
> "normative" definitions [unless explicitly marked otherwise].

I am not "married" to that principle being non-normative. But HTML5, 
like Polyglot Markup, includes a introduction, which very much defines 
principles. And all of it is defined as non-normative.[1]

The advantage of keeping the principle non-normative is, I think, that 
the spec doesn't get hurt if one fails to describe the principle well 

But I feel there perhaps is some need for more discussion of - well - 
the Polyglot principles. Henri defined the principle as merely logical 
output of the combination of the XML specification + the HTML 
specification. Whereas that principle paragraph defines how the specs 
were parsed/read in order to reach that common ground - and also where 
the principle is broken... Namely for xml:lang="*" et al, which results 
in different DOMs in XMl vs HTML. Which in turn points to the the 
textual principle (that Henri spoke about) as more "the" principle, 
than e.g. the "same DOM" principle.

The principles described in that paragraph, has been applied pretty 
strict, though - just read what it says about <style> and <script>. 
Perhaps some one argue that it is too strict w.r.t. <style> and 
<script> - I'm not sure, myself.

[1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/introduction.html#introduction
leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 14:01:51 UTC

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