W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2011

RE: Revised HTML/XML Task Force Report

From: Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:59:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4C7C3551020AE442A8994B13EAF69DDC03CE43AB@VF-MBX11.internal.vodafone.com>
To: "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>, <karld@opera.com>
Cc: <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>, <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Perhaps to “+1” (if I can still use that after Google's recent launch)  Larry’s comment, and restate:


When I read this I thought to myself, "what does it mean by 'limited applicability'?" Limited how? For example, if a high-volume Web site wanted to use such an XML tool chain producing and consuming HTML5, they could do so using Polyglot mark-up. Is that classed under "limited applicability"? I guess what I take issue with is the notion that for Polyglot to make any sense everyone has to adopt it – to me, that is not the point of polyglot.




From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Larry Masinter
Sent: 12 July 2011 07:29
To: karld@opera.com
Cc: nrm@arcanedomain.com; www-tag@w3.org; ndw@nwalsh.com
Subject: Re: Revised HTML/XML Task Force Report


Maybe I'm asking too much, but I was hoping that the report from a task force set up to work through xml-html convergence issues might give a better idea of how serious the problems with various approaches might be, to help inform decisions. Html pages that cannot be made polyglot..... are they rare? Common? Only happens with pages that also have significant problems in ogher ways? 

While detailed data might be hard to come by, how about ONE example of a page "in the wild" with this property...

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message-----

From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Norm Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 03:11:46 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: Revised HTML/XML Task Force Report


Le 11 juil. 2011 à 21:13, Larry Masinter a écrit :
> * How common are HTML documents that cannot be  reasonably represented in XML?

I'm not sure what you mean by common? Do you need global stats of the Web? Or patterns?
Global stats are difficult to draw.

For example, right now most of the documents which have an XHTML 1.0 doctype and are served as text/html are (unfortunately) not deliverable with application/xhtml+xml (My own site is only in application/xhtml+xml but I do not use scripting and many delicacies that most sites are using.)

> * What kinds of practical difficulties would arise for those documents (and how serious are those difficulties)?

These have been addressed a few times for a long time in different fora and is at the heart of all regular discussions between HTML and XML serializations. 

You can also check "How is the treatment of application/xhtml+xml documents different from the treatment of text/html documents?"

Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/

Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software

Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 10:00:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:39 UTC