- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:01:57 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net>
- Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, ayg@aryeh.name, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Karl Dubost, Fri, 19 Aug 2011 09:21:27 -0400: > Le 19 août 2011 à 07:29, Richard Ishida a écrit : >> 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. We are not discussing what polyglots require - for that we have Bugzilla. But the argument that polyglots fits well - for instance it should fulfill your 1st point, no? As for your second point: If there are requirements in Polyglot Markup that you consider formalism, only, then please file a bug. >> 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 To ensure that XML can be seen as HTML - and HTML as XML - is the purpose for which Polyglot Markup has been defined. For instance, caniuse.com shows that IE below version 9 does not support application/xhtml+xml. However, if the file is served with the .html suffix, then IE will sniff it as HTML anyhow. > 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. +1 -- Leif H Silli
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 17:02:29 UTC