W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Polyglot Markup Formal Objection Rationale

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:17:25 +0100
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20121106211725800103.56112698@xn--mlform-iua.no>


Leif H Silli

Leif Halvard Silli, Tue, 6 Nov 2012 19:49:44 +0100:
> Daniel Glazman, Tue, 06 Nov 2012 19:04:19 +0100:
>> On 04/11/12 15:59, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>>> At the HTML F2F, I was asked to provide rationale for my previously
>>> filed formal objection to the Polyglot Markup specification.
>> Here's what I wrote in my comments on this spec during the may 2011
>> LC vote:
>>   "Implementing myself a content editor for html5 (both
>>    serializations), I am still uncertain about the usefulness of this
>>    document, in other terms I doubt implementors will refer to this
>>    document and really implement tools conformant to it. I think then
>>    this document should leave the REC track and become a Note."
>> Of course, I never got an answer.
>> More than a year later, I still don't know why we have that document
>> on the REC track. It's still useless to me as an editor vendor.
>> I then support entirely Lachlan's objection here.
> You can at least have my answer: I think it was Boris who asked me, 
> rhetorically, why one would author anything but HTML-compatible XHTML.
> First, when in XHTML mode, then BlueGrifon and SeaMonkey Composer are 
> already relatively polyglot. (The only exceptions is, I think, the XML 
> encoding declaration, which it inserts even for HTML files. Plus that 
> it uses <meta http-equiv=* caontent=* /> - which never is allowed per 
> HTML5, not even in pure XHTML5. It could even seem as if BlueGriffon 
> adheres to the restriction to only have "safe" content inside <script> 
> and <style>.) 
> Second, if BlueGriffon were serious about polyglot markup, then e.g. 
> BlueGrifofon’s Wizard function did not need to ask me choose between 
> HTML formats and also did not need to ask me about the encoding. Also, 
> for generated files, then I would be able to choose the format simply 
> by changing the file suffix. I look forward to that day.
> -- 
> leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 20:18:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:38 UTC