- From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 17:30:50 +0000
- To: public-html@w3.org
Lachlan Hunt writes: > 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. > Leif Halvard Silli writes: > I would formally object that Polyglot Markup is changed to accept any > encoding but UTF-8. Obviously the above are in direct conflict, so there will be a Formal Objection on the allowed encoding(s) regardless of anything else. However, this seems to be a distinct matter from the existing Formal Objection (Lachlan's existing Formal Objection seems to be predicated on the Polyglot spec not including additional requirements not inherited from XHTML or text/html)[*1] -- so it may still be worth adjusting which parts of the Polyglot spec claim to be normative, to avoid the more general 'normative' point in Lachlan's Formal Objection. Once the Formal Objection for the encodings conflict has been resolved, one way or the other, the more general objection about normative claims will still need resolving, and it looks like there was a way of doing this that nobody objected to. [*1] Which means my attempts to avoid the Formal Objection, by finding an outcome everybody could live with, may actually have resulted in an increase in Formal Objections. Um, sorry about that everybody. Cheers Smylers -- New series of TV puzzle show 'Only Connect' (some questions by me) Mondays at 20:30 on BBC4, or iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/onlyconnect
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 22:16:42 UTC