- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:09:17 +0200
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: spec-prod@w3.org
David Carlisle, Fri, 19 Aug 2011 12:09:41 +0100: > On 19/08/2011 11:53, Karl Dubost wrote: >> Will XML well formed be enough for any xml consumer. It would be a >> low hanging fruit easy to achieve and that could satisfy everyone. > > It depends why the "html4" requirement is there in the first place. > > We've had the same problem with mathml forever, and I guess svg is the > same, in that we couldn't inline mathml examples into the normative > version of the spec. [...] > What may (or may not?) be needed are content model restrictions on using > or not using new "html5" structural features. Could a normative version > of the spec use canvas for example? Regarding 'inline': Perhaps I don't understand the problem fully, but the promise of Polyglot Markup is that the document can be consumed as XML. Thus, with Polyglot Markup you *could* use inline mathml and svg. (Another way to, at least keep the SVG/MathML in the same docuent, is to embed the foreign content as data: uris.) Of course, in legacy browsers, inline foreign content when consumed as HTML may not work, unless there is a script or some fallback. So, w.r.t. content model restrictions, then fallback requirments also seems relevant to include. Proper fallback requirements could perhaps permit canvas - and other XML-less features - to be used. -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 14:09:58 UTC