Re: NU’s polyglot possibilities (Was: The non-polyglot elephant in the room)

Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, 2013-01-25 15:20 -0500:

> On 1/24/13 4:57 AM, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> >But really what would get you even farther if you're using XML tools to
> >create your documents is to not try to check them as text/html at all but
> >instead serve them with an XML mime type, in which case the validator will
> >parse them as XML instead of text/html, and everything will work fine.
> 
> This remains the crux of the matter, at least to me. Why is what's outlined
> above illogical?

My understanding from talking with some people who choose not to do it is
that it's not so much a case of it being illogical as it is a case of it
being impractical if they want users of older versions of IE to be able to
view their Web documents.

> Most polyglot HTML is actually (X)HTML5 without DOCTYPE declarations.
> 
> The problem scenario I have goes like this:
> 
> 1. Schema.org and related efforts inadvertently encourage polyglot documents
> that don't include DOCTYPE declarations
> 
> 2. Publishers of these DOCTYPE deficient (X)HTML5 polyglots then *hope* that
> consumers (e.g. user agents) will go through the hell of making sense of
> this content packaged as Content-type "text/html" .

I don't disagree that scenario would be a problem for publishers.

  --Mike

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike

Received on Saturday, 26 January 2013 09:06:54 UTC