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

Re: Is the P-word? (Was: TAG Decision on Rescinding the request to the HTML WG to develop a polyglot guide)

From: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:50:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWM5TyY5UWm1G9CRzYLZDh2Q=r6wiWg4Nr3H7HGMO7O0Ug79w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> David Sheets, Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:03:18 -0800:
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Are there actual semantic consequences to using <meta
>> http-equiv="Content-Type" content="application/xhtml+xml" />?
>> I want to declare interpretive intent. If an author is interested in
>> producing polyglot markup, it seems quite silly to force their
>> consumers to make guesses about which methods of interpretation can be
>> used. HTTP itself contains an Upgrade facility
>> <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.42> and
>> it seems quite logical that a dual format facility should exist for
>> local, static resources or representations retrieved with protocols
>> that do not support authoritative, out-of-band metadata.
>> How does non-conformance to these legacy restrictions hurt anything?
> Polyglot markup is always 100% conforming regardless of the
> Content-Type you put on it - text/html (conforming as HTML5) or
> application/xhtml+xml (conforming as XHTML5). To introduce a feature
> that would only be permitted to use when the markup is polyglot, would
> be to deviate from the polyglot principles. It would not be a polyglot
> document anymore. You could of course file a bug that made that tag
> valid in both syntaxes, regardless of polyglotness, but that would
> defeat your purpose with the whole thing.


How would that defeat the purpose?

> Also, with some possible
> nuances, the feature you propose does not differ much from e.g. the
> XHTML namespace declaration, which is valid both as HTML5 and as
> XHTML5, but which only acts as a namespace declaration (that has an
> effect on the namespace) when served as XML: When served as text/html,
> its presence can be treated as hint that the document possibly uses
> polyglot markup. In other words: Such a hint already exists. So there
> is not a need for yet another hint.

I do not believe that the existence of the namespace declaration
indicates the same thing as an alternative Content-Type. It assumes a
1-1 map between possible content types and XML namespaces which
doesn't exist. It also precludes mixed documents or HTML subsets that
are not XML.

Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 04:51:14 UTC

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