- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:32:38 +0700
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Cc: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
I am thinking out loud a bit here. Let me try another formulation of HTML5 friendliness: any HTML5 document can be transformed into a polyglot MicroXML/HTML5 document. More formally, for any HTML5 DOM d that can be represented in the HTML syntax, there is a string s, such that: - s is HTML5 valid; - s is well-formed MicroXML; - HTML5-parsing s produces d; and - MicroXML-parsing s produces a data model "isomorphic" to d. Would this be useful? James On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > James Clark scripsit: > >> The ideal situation would be that MicroXML meets two requirements. >> >> 1. MicroXML can be used to represent any HTML5 DOM, and >> 2. HTML5 validity for MicroXML documents can be specified at the >> MicroXML data model level > > I don't agree with #2 at all; the model ought not to have complications > added solely for the sake of the HTML5 validity case. Unless there is > one and only one way to write a MicroXML document from a given model > (which seems unlikely) there may need to be a way to specify output > options, and "html" or "html5" may be among those. > > -- > We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodley do, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> > What we must, muddily must, muddily must, muddily must; > Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > Until we bust, bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust. --Bokonon
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 05:33:26 UTC