- From: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:21:27 -0400
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: spec-prod@w3.org, ayg@aryeh.name, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Le 19 août 2011 à 07:29, Richard Ishida a écrit : > [1] there are additional rules for polyglot documents to ensure that the document works as XML and HTML (for example, no XML declaration allowed, therefore encoding can only be utf-8 (or utf-16 but that was excluded from polyglot)). So it's not just xml well-formedness. Having said that, I don't think there are many additional rules to worry about. That's what the polyglot spec describes: http://www.w3.org/TR/html-polyglot/ I know what polyglot prescribes. :) It is not what we are discussing here. What I was aiming at are along these: 1. Finding a ground where - a group could publish its documents in HTML5 - the tools using W3C specifications pre/post publishing would not be disturbed. 2. To not worry about formalism but being practical about what we want to achieve. > what's needed is a defined subset of HTML5 for editors to use that reflects what is currently supported on major browsers. This seems to be a good goal to pursue. It is why I was thinking of an HTML file which could be "seen as xml" http://caniuse.com will help here What I have not seen on the discussion thread yet (and that I would like to see) is What are the current *tools* requirements for processing/hosting a document on W3C space? With these requirements, *we* (the community altogether) can decide what is usable or not. -- Karl Dubost Montréal, QC, Canada http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 13:21:55 UTC