W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Notes on the draft polyglot document Polyglot document

From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:59:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4C0F823E.7080405@opera.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, TAG List <www-tag@w3.org>
On 06/09/2010 01:35 PM, James Graham wrote:
> On 06/09/2010 01:21 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>> The TAG has reviewed the editor's draft "HTML/XHTML Compatibility
>> Authoring Guidelines"
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/html-xhtml-authoring-guide.html
> as retreived 2010-06-09 CVS rev 1.14
>> We welcome this effort and have a few suggestions as follows.
>> 1. The document should be couched as a specification. It specifies a
>> set of documents, defined by various constraints, most (though not
>> all, because of the constraints on what scripts do) of which can be
>> checked by a validator. (This is useful spec, even though of course
>> there are many types of document which are not exactly as defined
>> which also have interesting properties).
> I don't think it makes sense to make this document normative on that
> basis. The allowed content of a polyglot document is purely inferred
> from other, already normative, texts. Giving the same status to the
> underlying rules and the inferred rules seems like a recipe for trouble
> since one is effectively defining the same thing in multiple places.

Hmm, so this is more complex than I first thought, since there are also 
judgment calls about whether features are considered compatible enough 
to be "polyglot". Nevertheless I would prefer that there is a clear 
division between the actual rules that define what the term "polyglot" 
means (e.g. DOM must be identical when processed by a HTML or XHTML 
parser) and the consequences of those rules (e.g. tag names must be in 
canonical case).
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 12:00:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:34 UTC