W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2013

Re: The non-polyglot elephant in the room

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:19:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLDaNDFFJ5YFUYRowZopR-NwLXTtMCoR8WMNX-vFW+_Pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, www-tag@w3.org
On 21 January 2013 20:13, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
> wrote:
> > Please correct me if my characterization is wrong, but it appears to me
> that
> > this entire affair is about content-type (mime type) squatting i.e.,
> trying
> > to squeeze (X)HTML into content-type: text/html. If this is true, why on
> > earth would such an endeavor be encouraged by the W3C or its TAG?
>
> Maybe because XML is listed quite prominently under "What is Web
> architecture?" in http://www.w3.org/2004/10/27-tag-charter.html though
> I would consider that particular part of the charter misguided. (It's
> also not at all practiced these days.)
>

This is a good point, imho.  In 2004 it was perhaps reasonable to make a
'bet' on XML.  However, favouring any one particular serialization
potentially lacks future proofing.  However, favouring the principles
behind XML, such as namespacing etc.,  makes more sense.

Wikipedia has a reasonably nice write up on this topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_data_serialization_formats


>
>
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>
Received on Monday, 21 January 2013 19:20:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:51 UTC