Re: Polyglot markup and authors

On 1/31/2013 12:01 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Correct me if I'm wrong but from all your past messages related to
>> >polyglot I got impression that you want promote polyglot as the best
>> >seralization option for writing out web content.
> I can't credibly deny that. #JustAdmit

It's fine for Leif to argue that position, but I do not believe the TAG is 
trying to go that far. Rather, we suggest that there is a significant 
community who has their own reasons for using XML-compatible tool chains 
and content standards. In some cases it may not be desirable or practical 
to update tools to use HTML5 parsers, and in any case, some of these users 
prefer, at least for some of their processing, the stricter checking 
provided by XML.

Accordingly, the TAG has suggested that a Polyglot recommendation would be 
useful to that community. Among the reasons a polyglot specification would 
be useful include: a) avoiding the need for each user to determine the 
intersection of XML & HTML themselves; b) increasing interoperation among 
tools that are to support or create polyglot documents; c) providing a 
document that other specifications can reference, e.g. "Petroleum industry 
display page documents must conform to the polyglot specification [POLY]".

So, Leif appears to be saying "polyglot is the best serialization for 
all/most Web content"; the TAG is saying "there are important communities 
who will be well served by publishing the polyglot document as a 
recommendation". The TAG has not suggested that polyglot is preferable to 
more free form HTML5 in general.

BTW: there's no news from the TAG this week. I am merely summarizing my 
understanding of the position the TAG has previously agreed.


Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 18:19:34 UTC