- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:52:24 +0100
- CC: public-html@w3.org
On 2012-11-06 15:17, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > For me to not object this, the principles would need to be extended > with a 5th principle: > > 5. Limits itself to "the encoding" - that is: UTF-8. > > It doesn't matter to me whether you accept that principle as a "known > exception" or as a logical reading of the specs that polyglot markup > relies on. The exceptions I listed are cases where the inclusion of certain markup results in necessary, but semantically insignificant differences from parsing, and where the markup is still conforming in both serialisations. Non-UTF-8 encodings are conforming in both serialisations and there is no need for such a restriction. I will maintain an objection to any normative definition of polyglot markup that imposes additional restrictions on conforming markup that are not derived directly from the conforming intersection of the HTML and XHTML serialisations. That is, if something is conforming in both serialisations and does not result in a significant semantic difference in interpretation between HTML and XML parsers, then it should be considered conforming polyglot markup. I have no objection, however, to strongly recommending the use of UTF-8, as long as it is non-normative. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 14:52:53 UTC